diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes index 97b2e91cc39bf8121698e2a32676cc51c6fd21d5..60d65709642a3dbddc4aa67f9fd8b94bc4849a4f 100644 --- a/.gitattributes +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -5539,3 +5539,67 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text 2023/Language[[:space:]]Model[[:space:]]Analysis[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Ontology[[:space:]]Subsumption[[:space:]]Inference/6fa31862-b1ea-4de8-8da1-a4f2eba6ef5f_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text 2023/Language[[:space:]]Modeling[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Latent[[:space:]]Situations/916ebf86-4821-46f4-a642-81f73035dbd7_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text 2023/Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]German[[:space:]]Text[[:space:]]Simplification_[[:space:]]Overcoming[[:space:]]Parallel[[:space:]]Data[[:space:]]Scarcity[[:space:]]through[[:space:]]Style-specific[[:space:]]Pre-training/79849c60-d2cf-40cf-8f0a-9db2151769d3_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Language[[:space:]]acquisition_[[:space:]]do[[:space:]]children[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]language[[:space:]]models[[:space:]]follow[[:space:]]similar[[:space:]]learning[[:space:]]stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]Are[[:space:]]Partially[[:space:]]Primed[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Pronoun[[:space:]]Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]Can[[:space:]]be[[:space:]]Lazy[[:space:]]Learners_[[:space:]]Analyze[[:space:]]Shortcuts[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]In-Context[[:space:]]Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]are[[:space:]]Built-in[[:space:]]Autoregressive[[:space:]]Search[[:space:]]Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Controllable[[:space:]]Working[[:space:]]Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Layerwise[[:space:]]universal[[:space:]]adversarial[[:space:]]attack[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]NLP[[:space:]]models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learn[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Not[[:space:]]Link_[[:space:]]Exploring[[:space:]]NIL[[:space:]]Prediction[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Entity[[:space:]]Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learned[[:space:]]Adapters[[:space:]]Are[[:space:]]Better[[:space:]]Than[[:space:]]Manually[[:space:]]Designed[[:space:]]Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]Event-aware[[:space:]]Measures[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Event[[:space:]]Coreference[[:space:]]Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]Joint[[:space:]]Structural[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Temporal[[:space:]]Contextualized[[:space:]]Knowledge[[:space:]]Embeddings[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Temporal[[:space:]]Knowledge[[:space:]]Graph[[:space:]]Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]Query[[:space:]]Adaptive[[:space:]]Anchor[[:space:]]Representation[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Inductive[[:space:]]Relation[[:space:]]Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Analogy_[[:space:]]Diverse[[:space:]]Questions[[:space:]]Generation[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Math[[:space:]]Word[[:space:]]Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]from[[:space:]]Children_[[:space:]]Improving[[:space:]]Image-Caption[[:space:]]Pretraining[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]from[[:space:]]a[[:space:]]Friend_[[:space:]]Improving[[:space:]]Event[[:space:]]Extraction[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Self-Training[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Feedback[[:space:]]from[[:space:]]Abstract[[:space:]]Meaning[[:space:]]Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Generalize[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Cross-domain[[:space:]]QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Leverage[[:space:]]High-Order[[:space:]]Medical[[:space:]]Knowledge[[:space:]]Graph[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Joint[[:space:]]Entity[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Relation[[:space:]]Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Predict[[:space:]]Persona[[:space:]]Information[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Dialogue[[:space:]]Personalization[[:space:]]without[[:space:]]Explicit[[:space:]]Persona[[:space:]]Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Learning[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Rank[[:space:]]Utterances[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Query-Focused[[:space:]]Meeting[[:space:]]Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Lego-MT_[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]Detachable[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Massively[[:space:]]Multilingual[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Less[[:space:]]Likely[[:space:]]Brainstorming_[[:space:]]Using[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Generate[[:space:]]Alternative[[:space:]]Hypotheses/4df00d29-4775-4f6a-96f6-99e29515a8c1_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Leveraging[[:space:]]Denoised[[:space:]]Abstract[[:space:]]Meaning[[:space:]]Representation[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Grammatical[[:space:]]Error[[:space:]]Correction/954ac98b-3627-402e-ba0f-8545768a7058_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Leveraging[[:space:]]Explicit[[:space:]]Procedural[[:space:]]Instructions[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Data-Efficient[[:space:]]Action[[:space:]]Prediction/b978f616-c755-4f80-be8a-049326b0dd52_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Leveraging[[:space:]]Synthetic[[:space:]]Targets[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation/c679735b-5a99-4bf4-87b8-c1c384540cb8_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Leveraging[[:space:]]Training[[:space:]]Data[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Few-Shot[[:space:]]Prompting[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Numerical[[:space:]]Reasoning/fb282b11-871a-47e7-a4b1-643549fab2d6_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Lexical[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]Inconsistency-Aware[[:space:]]Document-Level[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]Repair/8de74fd8-7dcb-4bf1-87d1-f3e1c9e62ba8_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/LightFormer_[[:space:]]Light-weight[[:space:]]Transformer[[:space:]]Using[[:space:]]SVD-based[[:space:]]Weight[[:space:]]Transfer[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Parameter[[:space:]]Sharing/39835909-3feb-4f77-b618-495253273076_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Listen,[[:space:]]Decipher[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Sign_[[:space:]]Toward[[:space:]]Unsupervised[[:space:]]Speech-to-Sign[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Recognition/d2c5b0fb-3a18-4e37-b1ae-eb8e0f52deaf_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Local[[:space:]]Temperature[[:space:]]Beam[[:space:]]Search_[[:space:]]Avoid[[:space:]]Neural[[:space:]]Text[[:space:]]DeGeneration[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Enhanced[[:space:]]Calibration/d2d26b82-599b-4ac9-84e5-4ac148f3fc4a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Logical[[:space:]]Transformers_[[:space:]]Infusing[[:space:]]Logical[[:space:]]Structures[[:space:]]into[[:space:]]Pre-Trained[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models/e1df4d4e-0b48-471c-a883-3469d1f653bd_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Long[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]reign[[:space:]]over[[:space:]]us_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Case[[:space:]]Study[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]a[[:space:]]New[[:space:]]Monarch/0a31e81f-1fb9-406a-8486-d4299b7ca79c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Low-Rank[[:space:]]Updates[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]pre-trained[[:space:]]Weights[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Multi-Task[[:space:]]Learning/5b90eb3d-78b3-4f8e-8fec-c3318da4668e_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MISMATCH_[[:space:]]Fine-grained[[:space:]]Evaluation[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Machine-generated[[:space:]]Text[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Mismatch[[:space:]]Error[[:space:]]Types/028eaee1-224f-4ff5-98ba-f898d5b5e42b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/ML-LMCL_[[:space:]]Mutual[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Large-Margin[[:space:]]Contrastive[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Improving[[:space:]]ASR[[:space:]]Robustness[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Spoken[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Understanding/9a1716be-cb2a-4761-b1e2-62232bca611a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MMSD2.0_[[:space:]]Towards[[:space:]]a[[:space:]]Reliable[[:space:]]Multi-modal[[:space:]]Sarcasm[[:space:]]Detection[[:space:]]System/6ebcabc1-8fc5-4ae6-a8b0-7b5d87702d09_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MTCue_[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]Zero-Shot[[:space:]]Control[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Extra-Textual[[:space:]]Attributes[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Leveraging[[:space:]]Unstructured[[:space:]]Context[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Neural[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation/9f16f026-a6f7-49fa-a734-d26fd4f0f93f_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MTGP_[[:space:]]Multi-turn[[:space:]]Target-oriented[[:space:]]Dialogue[[:space:]]Guided[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Generative[[:space:]]Global[[:space:]]Path[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Flexible[[:space:]]Turns/9be2d9ab-1328-48a2-b99c-2c96420959ff_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MTR_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Dataset[[:space:]]Fusing[[:space:]]Inductive,[[:space:]]Deductive,[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Defeasible[[:space:]]Reasoning/cff8496e-17bb-43f4-b56d-9e88a45acac1_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MURMUR_[[:space:]]Modular[[:space:]]Multi-Step[[:space:]]Reasoning[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Semi-Structured[[:space:]]Data-to-Text[[:space:]]Generation/0b06c6ac-0b91-4924-96b1-26569658b341_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MVP_[[:space:]]Multi-task[[:space:]]Supervised[[:space:]]Pre-training[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Natural[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Generation/58a594ee-b15d-46dd-a4f8-51d15c8e39ec_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Making[[:space:]]Better[[:space:]]Use[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Training[[:space:]]Corpus_[[:space:]]Retrieval-based[[:space:]]Aspect[[:space:]]Sentiment[[:space:]]Triplet[[:space:]]Extraction[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Label[[:space:]]Interpolation/5844c40d-588a-4a37-a9d7-bb39595c6b9a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Making[[:space:]]Pre-trained[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]Better[[:space:]]Learn[[:space:]]Few-Shot[[:space:]]Spoken[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Understanding[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]More[[:space:]]Practical[[:space:]]Scenarios/8cc027e1-57bc-4a36-9cc1-ba59cd317495_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Making[[:space:]]Pre-trained[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]both[[:space:]]Task-solvers[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Self-calibrators/cfc26661-8bc8-400e-b584-1da3e3710596_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Mapping[[:space:]]Brains[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Survey/1784e28c-3a14-4eb8-8e7f-d985ac0a0fe5_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Mars_[[:space:]]Modeling[[:space:]]Context[[:space:]]&[[:space:]]State[[:space:]]Representations[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Contrastive[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]End-to-End[[:space:]]Task-Oriented[[:space:]]Dialog/03c375d0-3487-43bd-b228-7e3ed7a3d04d_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Masked[[:space:]]Audio[[:space:]]Text[[:space:]]Encoders[[:space:]]are[[:space:]]Effective[[:space:]]Multi-Modal[[:space:]]Rescorers/329a6e25-6cb8-49e4-9d16-70b9faf4e482_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Masked[[:space:]]Latent[[:space:]]Semantic[[:space:]]Modeling_[[:space:]]an[[:space:]]Efficient[[:space:]]Pre-training[[:space:]]Alternative[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Masked[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Modeling/d50cf3b9-a830-43a4-8f3f-c86ab21879f4_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Maximum[[:space:]]Entropy[[:space:]]Loss,[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Silver[[:space:]]Bullet[[:space:]]Targeting[[:space:]]Backdoor[[:space:]]Attacks[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Pre-trained[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models/d7c050e4-5ec5-444a-b5f6-99de5b792e2b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Measuring[[:space:]]Intersectional[[:space:]]Biases[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Historical[[:space:]]Documents/41995865-156c-477a-bf24-49b70b31fce2_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Measuring[[:space:]]Your[[:space:]]ASTE[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]The[[:space:]]Wild_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Diversified[[:space:]]Multi-domain[[:space:]]Dataset[[:space:]]For[[:space:]]Aspect[[:space:]]Sentiment[[:space:]]Triplet[[:space:]]Extraction/1693153d-9e5d-4ec5-b40d-ce877c323b7d_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Measuring[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Mitigating[[:space:]]Local[[:space:]]Instability[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Deep[[:space:]]Neural[[:space:]]Networks/cb31d90e-2a3e-4650-8054-536cb84c467c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MedNgage_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Dataset[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Understanding[[:space:]]Engagement[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Patient-Nurse[[:space:]]Conversations/69cf41d9-bf3d-469b-99c9-1898901f3948_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Medical[[:space:]]Dialogue[[:space:]]Generation[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Dual[[:space:]]Flow[[:space:]]Modeling/8fda489c-5416-4008-a3ad-4707c6afbd45_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Membership[[:space:]]Inference[[:space:]]Attacks[[:space:]]against[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Neighbourhood[[:space:]]Comparison/24c94e80-52b2-422d-835f-2268953fe120_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Meta-training[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Demonstration[[:space:]]Retrieval[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Efficient[[:space:]]Few-shot[[:space:]]Learning/85a0b17b-7f36-4465-896d-e9b766f916d5_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Mind[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Biases_[[:space:]]Quantifying[[:space:]]Cognitive[[:space:]]Biases[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Model[[:space:]]Prompting/868caa0a-78d9-4953-81e2-c8db2e89964b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Mini-Model[[:space:]]Adaptation_[[:space:]]Efficiently[[:space:]]Extending[[:space:]]Pretrained[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]New[[:space:]]Languages[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Aligned[[:space:]]Shallow[[:space:]]Training/3347fd23-0f0a-4722-84f5-ffebba963b86_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Misleading[[:space:]]Relation[[:space:]]Classifiers[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Substituting[[:space:]]Words[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Texts/ee9cd3e7-592e-4fc5-8c00-153ca2023e70_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Mitigating[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]Bias[[:space:]]towards[[:space:]]Repetition[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Self-Contrastive[[:space:]]Training[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Open-Ended[[:space:]]Generation/656dd1bc-aa11-47f7-8759-296706036421_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MixPAVE_[[:space:]]Mix-Prompt[[:space:]]Tuning[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Few-shot[[:space:]]Product[[:space:]]Attribute[[:space:]]Value[[:space:]]Extraction/1a449d90-f610-483f-b6e0-ed9b54e64167_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/MoNET_[[:space:]]Tackle[[:space:]]State[[:space:]]Momentum[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Noise-Enhanced[[:space:]]Training[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Dialogue[[:space:]]State[[:space:]]Tracking/e05b432d-56a1-4dae-8f6e-8bbade3c6cff_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Model[[:space:]]Analysis[[:space:]]&[[:space:]]Evaluation[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Ambiguous[[:space:]]Question[[:space:]]Answering/0f137193-35e3-4656-bf39-057f1f40764c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Model[[:space:]]Interpretability[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Rationale[[:space:]]Extraction[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Input[[:space:]]Mask[[:space:]]Optimization/33582781-e8cd-4e14-89e9-e0e39c59158b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Model[[:space:]]Intrinsic[[:space:]]Features[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Fine-tuning[[:space:]]based[[:space:]]Text[[:space:]]Summarization[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Factual[[:space:]]Consistency/e520d862-13ea-46c6-b75f-aff70f95af1c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Modeling[[:space:]]Adversarial[[:space:]]Attack[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Pre-trained[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]as[[:space:]]Sequential[[:space:]]Decision[[:space:]]Making/bbd2b0f7-11b9-41df-84c2-1146c3dd5d97_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text diff --git a/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_content_list.json b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..310b92d7fd42fdaae65cae4d396354016eea260a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2191 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language acquisition: do children and language models follow similar learning stages?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 136, + 86, + 867, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Linnea Evanson", + "bbox": [ + 178, + 139, + 322, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Meta AI Paris;", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 158, + 295, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 174, + 359, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ecole normale supérieure", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 187, + 327, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PSL University", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 198, + 297, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "linnea.evanson8@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 214, + 364, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yair Lakretz*", + "bbox": [ + 438, + 139, + 559, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit", + "bbox": [ + 406, + 162, + 591, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CEA,INSERM", + "bbox": [ + 448, + 175, + 547, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Université Paris-Saclay", + "bbox": [ + 426, + 186, + 569, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NeuroSpin Center", + "bbox": [ + 442, + 198, + 554, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "yair.lakretz@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 396, + 214, + 600, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jean-Rémi King*", + "bbox": [ + 677, + 139, + 826, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Meta AI Paris;", + "bbox": [ + 702, + 158, + 794, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs", + "bbox": [ + 638, + 174, + 858, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ecole normale supérieure", + "bbox": [ + 670, + 187, + 828, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PSL University", + "bbox": [ + 700, + 198, + 796, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "jeanremi@meta.com", + "bbox": [ + 672, + 215, + 828, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 341, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During language acquisition, children follow a typical sequence of learning stages, whereby they first learn to categorize phonemes before they develop their lexicon and eventually master increasingly complex syntactic structures. However, the computational principles that lead to this learning trajectory remain largely unknown. To investigate this, we here compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those of children. Specifically, we test whether, during its training, GPT-2 exhibits stages of language acquisition comparable to those observed in children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we train 48 GPT-2 models from scratch and evaluate their syntactic and semantic abilities at each training step, using 96 probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks. We then compare these evaluations with the behavior of 54 children during language production. Our analyses reveal three main findings. First, similarly to children, the language models tend to learn linguistic skills in a systematic order. Second, this learning scheme is parallel: the language tasks that are learned last improve from the very first training steps. Third, some – but not all – learning stages are shared between children and these language models. Overall, these results shed new light on the principles of language acquisition, and highlight important divergences in how humans and modern algorithms learn to process natural language.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 746, + 260, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language acquisition is marked by a series of successive stages (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). Within their first year of existence, humans infants successively acquire prosody contours (Mehler et al., 1988), phonetic categories (Werker and Tees, 1984; Kuhl et al., 1992; Mazuka et al., 2011) and frequent words (Tincoff and Jusczyk, 1999; Bergelson and Swingley, 2012).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 490, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "They then learn to produce basic syntactic structures (e.g. \"The boy sang\" or \"The boy fell\"), questions (e.g. \"What sound does a cow make?\") and nested syntactic structures (e.g. \"The boy that I saw sang\"), at approximately 12, 30, and 42 months, respectively (Friedmann et al., 2021). Even though some children may take slightly longer to learn than others, there is a set order in which children acquire various syntactic structures (Friedmann and Reznick, 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our understanding of the entire learning trajectory of children remains very coarse, however. This partly stems from the difficulty of measuring linguistic skills in young children. In babies, experimenters typically measure eye gaze and sucking rate while children process linguistic stimuli, as these reflexive behaviors are known to increase during surprising events. Such \"implicit\" approaches have successfully been used to assess whether nonspeaking infants detect linguistic violations (Zamuner, 2006), distinguish lexical from grammatical words (Shi et al., 1999) or discriminate their native language from a foreign language (Mehler et al., 1988; Kuhl et al., 2006; Nazzi et al., 2000). In older children, linguistic skills can also be more explicitly measured from spontaneous speech and sentence repetition. For example, a recent study by Friedmann et al. (2021), to which we compare our work in this paper, quantified the extent to which 18 month to 6 year-old children produce variably complex syntactic structures. For both of these approaches, however, the measures from children at such early ages can be noisy and fragmented.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 417, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interestingly, these issues do not apply to modern language models. Deep learning architectures trained to predict words from their proximal contexts have proved immensely effective at learning to process natural language (Radford et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019). Unlike humans, these algorithms can be easily probed during training, at any time point and rate, and with unlimited number of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Equal Contribution", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 270, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12205", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 12205-12218", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 778, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 959, + 700, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "test stimuli, without interfering with their language acquisition (Jawahar et al., 2019; Manning et al., 2020; Bowman and Dahl, 2021). Furthermore, high-performing deep nets have been shown to implicitly (Lakretz et al., 2019; Gulordava et al., 2018) or explicitly learn to represent and use syntactic structures (Manning et al., 2020), as well as to use features such as concreteness and lexical class to learn language (Chang and Bergen, 2022). Finally, and importantly, these deep neural networks have recently been shown to represent lexical, syntactic and compositional representations similarly to the adult brain (Jain and Huth, 2018; Toneva and Wehbe, 2019; Caucheteux and King, 2022; Pasquiou et al., 2022, 2023; Caucheteux et al., 2023). Evidencing similar learning trajectories in children and language models could thus provide an invaluable framework to better understand the computational principles underlying language acquisition.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 492, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we compare the trajectory of language acquisition between human children and modern language models. We focus on three main questions. First, do these models learn linguistic skills in a systematic order? Second, is this trajectory sequential or parallel? Third, is this trajectory similar to that of children? These hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 391, + 489, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we train 48 GPT-2 architectures (Radford et al., 2019) from scratch, using a standard next-word prediction objective. We then evaluate, at each training step, their linguistic abilities with 96 semantic and syntactic probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks (Warstadt et al., 2020; Huebner et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). Finally, we compare a subset of these probes to the behavior of 54 children aged, between 18 months and 6 years (Friedmann et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 519, + 489, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 235, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Language models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 727, + 297, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We consider two main language models. First, we use a pretrained language model – GPT-2 – as provided by HuggingFace and pretrained on 40 GB of data (Radford et al., 2019). Second, we separately train 48 versions of a 12-layer GPT-2 model from scratch. We train each model on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a distinct random seed to set its initial parameters and data-loader. Each model is evaluated on all linguistic probes every", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 749, + 489, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "100 training steps. Further training details are provided in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Zero-shot linguistic probes", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 123, + 764, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zero-shot linguistic probes are sentences or phrases crafted to evaluate whether a model has learned a particular linguistic skill, without training or finetuning the model on that particular skill. In practice, a zero-shot probe consists of comparing the estimated probability of a grammatical sentence with that of a matched ungrammatical sentence. This two-alternative forced-choice approach can be compared to \"acceptability judgements\", classically used in linguistics (Warstadt et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 146, + 884, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our models on 96 different linguistic probes, curated from three open source benchmarks, the details of which are presented in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 307, + 884, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we compare the probability of each sentence in a grammatical/ungrammatical pair by evaluating the sum of the logarithm of the loss output by the softmax layer:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 882, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {n _ {g}} \\log (f (X _ {g}) _ {i}) < \\sum_ {j = 0} ^ {n _ {u}} \\log (f (X _ {u}) _ {j}) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 556, + 463, + 880, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with $f$ the softmax layer of the language model, $X_{g}$ and $X_{u}$ the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively, and $n_g$ and $n_u$ , the number of tokens in the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 519, + 882, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The accuracy of a given probe is the percentage of pairs where the estimated probability of the grammatical sentence is higher than that of the ungrammatical sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 600, + 882, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Assessing learning trajectory", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 781, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate whether the trajectory of language acquisition is shared across models, we rank the probes by their \"acquisition time\", i.e. the number of steps taken by a model to reach $90\\%$ of its final accuracy on a particular probe, for each model independently. We then assess the correlation of ranks between all pairs of the 48 models and take the average of these correlations. To estimate the statistical significance of this average correlation we redo this calculation for all possible model pairs after shuffling the ranks of one of the models in each pair. We repeat this permutation 1,000 times, getting 1,000 values for this shuffled correlation. If in all cases this shuffled correlation is lower than", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1https://huggingface.co/gpt2", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 310, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12206", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the true average correlation, then the order of acquisition time is shared across models with $p < 0.001$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.4 Parallel versus Sequential learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 139, + 433, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language acquisition may be characterized by a \"sequential\" or a \"parallel\" learning scheme (Figure 1). \"Sequential\" learning designates the case where a complex skill does not start to be learned before simpler skills are mastered. By contrast, \"Parallel\" learning designates the case where all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. The null hypothesis is that the order in which an agent learns linguistic skills varies across agents. To determine the learning scheme of language models, we consider whether the probes have a positive derivative in the first three checkpoints (parallel learning) or not (sequential learning), and whether they have statistically different learning rates (by performing a one-way ANOVA test) across the three groups.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 162, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.5 Assessing linguistic skill from children's behavior", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 473, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Friedmann et al. (2021) studied 54 Hebrew-speaking children between the ages of 18 - 71 months and investigated the emergence of 11 linguistic phenomena, which the authors propose to organize into three stages (details in Appendix A). For our analysis we select the following tests, one from each stage:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 489, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Stage 1: Simple sentences in subject-verb (SV) order", + "- Stage 2: Wh Questions", + "- Stage 3: Relative Clauses" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 590, + 485, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data collection consisted of spontaneous speech samples produced by each child at home. Each sample was then manually annotated to detect the presence of each of the linguistic phenomena. A linguistic phenomenon was considered learned if and only if it was present in the speech sample. Speech samples had a mean length of 151 utterances per sample and standard deviation of 37. The aggregated data was made available directly in the original paper (under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License), and here used for comparison with our language models. In Table 1 we show which probes in the models matched with these tests.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 608, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We aim to compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those observed in 54 children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we trained variants of GPT-2 models (Radford et al., 2019) from 48 different random seeds with the WikiText103 dataset (Merit et al., 2016) and evaluated each model on 96 linguistic probes every 100 steps.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 884, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "At the end of this training, 64 probes (66%) were achieved above chance level (50% accuracy) by all models. In comparison, a pretrained version of GPT-2 large (Radford et al., 2019) provided by Hugging Face $^2$ , and trained on a much larger dataset $^3$ , achieves above-chance performance on 93 of the 96 probes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 235, + 884, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 A systematic learning trajectory", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 808, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For clarity, we focus on the learning dynamics of the probes that ultimately achieve above-chance performance in our training. Figure 2 lists all probes learned above chance level, ordered by their average acquisition time. We perform the permutation analysis outlined in 2.3, to evaluate whether the order of acquisition is shared between models, and find that their order of acquisition is correlated with $R = 0.743$ and $p < 0.001$ . These results suggest that there is a systematic learning trajectory among models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 375, + 884, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Learning is parallel across linguistic tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 557, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Are these linguistic skills learned sequentially or in parallel (Figure 1)? To address this question, we evaluate whether each linguistic probe starts to improve from the very first training steps but with different rates (i.e. a \"parallel\" learning scheme) or, on the contrary, whether some probes only start to improve once others have reached a particular performance (i.e. a \"sequential\" learning scheme). As the individual learning trajectories of each probe were noisy, we group the 64 linguistic probes into three categories: early, middle and late acquisition time (Figure 3).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 882, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall, we observe parallel learning between the three groups: their performances all increase from the beginning of training: $95\\%$ of tests in all three groups have a positive derivative within the first three hundred steps. However, they have different learning rates, as evaluated with a one-way ANOVA test on the learning rate (i.e. change", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://huggingface.co/tftransformers/gpt2-large", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 890, + 831, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{3}{40}\\mathrm{{GB}}$ compared to the ${181}\\mathrm{{MB}}$ of WikiText103", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 833, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12207", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d0dea45aa26fe24dd3b78ce9112237b6059833c376ac00595f37540c4834e8e0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Hypotheses. Skill performance (y-axis) as a function of training (x-axis) illustrated on three tasks (colors) and two agents (model or children). Sequential learning implies that the learning of a complex skill (e.g. C, shown in red) does not start before simplest skills (e.g. A in green and B in blue) are fully learned. Parallel learning implies that all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. Sequential and parallel learning may cross an arbitrary performance threshold at the same training step. The frequency at which we can probe artificial networks during learning is much greater than what is realistically possible in children, giving us the timescale granularity to distinguish sequential and parallel learning trajectories. We also present a null hypothesis, that artificial networks with different random seeds may learn skills in a different order." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 84, + 378, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f27c71387747471f90818c4ef27dfce6ff3da95f965a0e7c9e24ba7e83f2d63e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 383, + 83, + 630, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/35d1246d79b6f047f0f4d3fb0e916b43e5ea80c505b8139ad91a8c9b5598a3b4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 630, + 83, + 880, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9da4eafe1260db2bc5382933dd3306e9f3a9477c453ba70fb06d01fc73f8eccf.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StageChildrenLanguage Model
1Simple sentences in Subject-Verb (SV) orderSV agreement across simple sentences
2Wh-questionsSV agreement in questions
3Relative Clauses (RCs)SV agreement across object RCs
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 370, + 858, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Linguistic phenomena in children selected for comparison with probes in the language models.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 449, + 850, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of accuracy over time) obtained in each group and in each model $(p < 10^{-23})$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 489, + 487, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Comparison with children", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 529, + 368, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Do these learning trajectories match the behavior of human children? For the three probes that correspond to the three stages identified in children's language acquisition (Table 1), we observe that the order in which these three probes are learned by the language models is the same as those of children (Figure 4). This effect is robust across random seeds: 46 of our 48 GPT-2 models follows this order, where chance level is $(1/3!)^{46} = 1.60e^{-36}$ . For this subset of language abilities, models and children thus seem to acquire syntactic skills in a similar order.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 551, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Learning of theoretically-defined stages is parallel", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 751, + 487, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In part 3.1, we showed that GPT-2 learns its language abilities in parallel. Does this learning scheme also characterize the three syntactic skills investigated in children? To address this question, we now look at the learning curves of the skills defined in Table 1, as well as an additional probe: Nounpp, as it can be separated into congruent and incongruent cases which is important for the anal", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ysis in section 3.5. Overall, we observe that these probes are all learned in parallel in the model (Figure 5A).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 489, + 884, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Models use both syntax and heuristics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 552, + 853, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Both an understanding of syntactic rules and a superficial heuristics can lead to above-chance performances on these probes. Indeed, in many sentences (e.g. The cat [subject] of the lady [attractor] is [verb] hungry.), the number of the verb is congruent with the number of the adjacent attractor, even if the two are not related syntactically. To verify that the GPT-2 models effectively learn the syntactic rules, we thus separately examine congruent and incongruent cases. Incongruent cases require knowledge of the syntax of the sentence as the correct verb number is different from the number of the attractor. Empirically, we observe that the models do not learn the incongruent case in stage three above chance level, and just barely reach chance level on the incongruent case in stage two (Figure 5B), indicating that our models are using heuristics rather than syntactic rules to achieve high accuracy on the congruent cases (leading to above chance performance on the probe overall in Figure 5A). On the contrary, the pretrained GPT", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 581, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12208", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b010ed78004a7b83855311dec96637769c4214e3054ba0dba02e8742b0e7c893.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The performance of the models on each linguistic probe over time is smoothed using a moving average filter with window size of 6 checkpoints then the number of steps required to reach $90\\%$ of final accuracy (acquisition time) is calculated. Probes are ordered by increasing average acquisition time. Results shown for 48 models. Only probes which have final accuracy greater than chance $(50\\%)$ are shown. This demonstrates that probes tend to be learned in the same order by all agents with $\\mathrm{R} = 0.743$ , $\\mathrm{p} < 0.001$ , disproving the null hypothesis." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 83, + 880, + 694 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 large achieves above $75\\%$ accuracy also on the incongruent cases of these probes. Thus for the models trained on the WikiText103, syntax is only learned for stages one and two, and heuristics seem to explain the above chance accuracy in stage three. A larger training dataset is required to learn syntax and not only heuristics for the most difficult", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 804, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "examples.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 804, + 588, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.6 Impact of number biases in congruent and incongruent sentences", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 829, + 880, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In previous work, it was found that a variety of language models have a bias towards plural English verbs, and several studies (Jumelet et al., 2019;", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12209", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2a909119396e6065cd8fb6ecc488cab23f1cbcbd9896e111eccb313d3bf103b9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Linguistic probes grouped into 3 groups to avoid plotting one line per probe. The probes in each group correspond to the colours in Figure 2. Probes which have final accuracy less than chance (50%) are placed in their own group, and tend to zero likely due to biases towards plural verbs in English (c.f. 3.6). Shading is standard error of the mean across probes in the group. This figure demonstrates that linguistic skills are learned in parallel not in sequence." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 84, + 480, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lakretz et al., 2021a,b) determined that LSTM-based models have a default number and gender prediction preference. To examine whether number bias has a significant effect on our analysis, we compare congruent sentences with only singular or only plural verbs and incongruent sentences with a plural or a singular verb. Accuracy on predicting plural verbs increases sharply from the start of the training and then drops. By contrast, the accuracy of singular cases first drops and then rises (Figure 5C), indicating that the models are biased towards plural verbs at the beginning of training. This bias is overcome for the stage one probe but for stage two and three it remains throughout training. This explains the initial downward trend in Group 3 and why the unlearned probes tend toward zero in Figure 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 469, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 750, + 240, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The stages followed by children to acquire language has been the topic of intense research (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). While this learning trajectory is becoming clearer for sublexical representations (Dupoux, 2018), the acquisition of higher-level syntactic and semantic processing remains largely unclear. Here, we approach this long-lasting question through the lens of a deep language architecture, GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019),", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to test whether this model follows a learning trajectory similar to children.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Language acquisition: similarities and differences between humans and GPT-2", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 131, + 868, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, we show that GPT-2 models tend to learn a battery of linguistic phenomena (Warstadt et al., 2020; Lakretz et al., 2019; Huebner et al., 2021) in a consistent order. It is the reliability of the acquisition trajectory that allows a direct comparison with the learning trajectory of children (Friedmann et al., 2021). However, this consistency in GPT-2 models may result from two non-mutually exclusive factors, that remain to be disentangled: either the acquisition time of each linguistic phenomenon relates to its frequency in natural language (e.g. Simple subject-verb-complement are more frequent in natural language than nested syntactic structures; Karlsson 2007), and/or it relates to their intrinsic complexity (e.g. sentences with nested structure require more operations to be composed than simple sentences). Future work systematically controlling for these relative frequencies is thus necessary to distinguish these two possibilities, and would build upon work by Weber et al. (2021) who found that less frequent linguistic phenomena can be learned from fewer examples, though later in training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 174, + 884, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, we show that the order in which linguistic skills are acquired is similar between children and GPT-2 – at least on the syntactic phenomena that were evaluated in these two cohorts, and with the limitation of using number agreement as a proxy to whether the models acquire the corresponding syntactic structure. Similarly to children, GPT-2 models master subject-verb agreement in SV sentences before they master it in questions, or across nested center-embedded clauses (object-relative clauses). This result thus complements a series of studies comparing modern language models and humans. For example, a recent study showed that transformers trained on child-directed data can achieve comparable accuracy on linguistic probes to large pre-trained models (Huebner et al., 2021). Similarly, several studies have recently shown that the representations of GPT-2 become increasingly similar to those of the adult human brain during its training (Caucheteux and King, 2022). Finally, Lavechin et al. (2022) showed that models trained on audio in a self-supervised fashion learn phoneme and lexical abilities in a similar trajectory to children.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12210", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b52612123aa11f556fd821244d49acef99ea1664d766992b21fa9b4f64e0feca.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Comparing language model performance on linguistic probes to children's performance. Example sentences observed in children were originally in Hebrew (Friedmann et al., 2021). Non-white indicates the phenomena is learned by the agent. The threshold for considering a probe learned by the model is performance above $55\\%$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 84, + 880, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/781b658bfc78f7ed0cfd5ca39e7257e9e00e41fa315e3713a7e983d9647b09f4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 265, + 485, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/da214a664f165da850401a424511f74092afc15d53a881a9a745c6cfcbe30486.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 273, + 875, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8f69bb2d9586d1e9e2088e0e72e3684b35d63a5659bce91acb74b82ef3c4f313.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Subject verb agreement. Shading is standard error of the mean across seeds. S: Singular. P: Plural. A. Parallel learning is observed in the three stages defined by Friedmann et al. (2021), when results are averaged across congruent and incongruent cases. B. Subject verb agreement on incongruent cases which indicate whether the model understands syntax. The networks do not learn some syntax structures as the incongruent case of Short Nested Outer does not reach above chance level. C. Development trajectories of the bias towards plural number in English." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 464, + 371, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d9f2fe0c53b9a8f161d38e2674a786a7947db551734aa4365370e19ba64859ed.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "C" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 376, + 480, + 615, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9a08e1eaf97814dbb46825830657e249397e179eab8e5ca1883d404625c23eef.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 618, + 464, + 875, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 A work in progress", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 310, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is important to stress that significant work remains to be done before drawing any definitive conclusions about the similarities between language acquisition in humans and algorithms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 802, + 487, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, we only consider a single architecture (GPT-2, Radford et al. (2019)) with a unique textual corpus (WikiText103). Testing whether our", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "results hold true independently of the model and training corpus remains an important milestone for future research.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, linguistic abilities are not tested with the same protocols in children and in the models: the models are explicitly tested on next word prediction, with a two-alternative forced-choice metric, whereas children were implicitly evaluated on their ability to spontaneously use specific syntactic struc", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12211", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tures during natural speech.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 321, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Third, there were only three linguistic features that were directly comparable between the model probes and the data in children, and all were syntactic. This leaves a significant margin of progress to modulate our conclusion, and investigate whether the lexicon, narrative structures, pragmatics and world-knowledge are acquired in the same order in humans and algorithms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 101, + 487, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fourth, the order in which some linguistic skills were learned by GPT-2 does not trivially fit with linguistic theory. For example, the probe \"Simple\", which examines subject-verb agreement in a simple sentence, was one of the last probes to be learned by GPT-2 (it is part of group three in Figure 2). By contrast, \"Wh Questions Subject Gap Long Distance\" was among the first probes to be to be learned, even though it would be expected to be much harder than \"Simple\". This unexpected result may be due to the way we approximate \"Acquisition Time\", namely, the moment when the probes reaches $90\\%$ of the final accuracy. Consequently, probes with very low final accuracy could end up with a shorter Acquisition Time, because noise may lead to crossing the $90\\%$ threshold relatively quickly.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 230, + 489, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we show that our models appear to use heuristics rather than a deep understanding of syntax for the most difficult linguistic probes (incongruent numbers between verbs and their attractors) and were biased towards plural English verbs. While our models learn only $66\\%$ of tasks to above chance level, a larger GPT-2 pretrained on considerably more texts successfully perform on $97\\%$ of the tasks, and has an accuracy above $75\\%$ on the incongruent examples, meaning this bias and reliance on heuristics could potentially be solved by training on a larger dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 489, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In sum, additional work remains necessary to identify the exact elements of convergence and divergence between the acquisition of language in models and in children.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 697, + 489, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Fueling the debate between nativism versus empiricism", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 768, + 448, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The present study fuels a long-lasting debate on the acquisition of language. While \"empiricists\" argue that language can be acquired with a statistical approach (Clark, 2002; Kolodny et al., 2015; Chater and Christiansen, 2018; McCauley and Christiansen, 2019), \"nativists\" maintain that this ability depends on a core and innate operation, spe", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cific to humans (Chomsky, 1959, 1971).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 808, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The present study shows how modern language models may contribute to resolving this debate, by systematically studying which components of a model (e.g. architecture) or properties of the training data (e.g., frequency of sentence structures) contribute to shape the trajectory of language acquisition. Claims about an innate Universal Grammar could be understood as an inductive bias of a language model, implemented in its architecture and dynamics, which tightly constrains learning trajectories across models. If this bias is hierarchical (rather than linear) then this could lead to learning trajectories that follow the structure of the syntactic tree, consistently with the hypothesis of three linguistic stages presented by Friedmann et al. (2021) in humans and what we find in this study in language models. Indeed, neural language models have been previously shown to have a weak inductive bias towards hierarchical processing (McCoy et al., 2020; Kharitonov and Chaabouni, 2020), which can partially explain our results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 101, + 884, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This result echos the recent observation that syntactic trees spontaneously emerge in the middle layers of neural language models (Hewitt and Manning, 2019). Together, these elements thus suggest that modern neural networks provide fruitful models of language acquisition and could reconcile or settle the confronting theories of language acquisition (Warstadt and Bowman, 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 884, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 573, + 643, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall, the similarities identified between children and GPT-2 suggest that there may be a small set of means by which to efficiently acquire language. This result is anything but trivial: humans and deep neural networks have extraordinarily different architectures, training, and language exposure. If generalized, this systematic learning trajectory would support the existence of an intrinsic hierarchy of linguistic structures that both machines and humans must climb, be that through inductive biases or properties of the training data, to master the faculty of language. And while these hypotheses remain open, the path to resolve them has never been clearer.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 884, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12212", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 285, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to thank Dieuwke Hupkes, Naama Friedmann, Marco Baroni and the attendees of the EviL meetings for their comments and suggestions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 489, + 153 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 945304, for L.E for her work at PSL. This work was funded in part by FrontCog grant ANR-17-EURE-0017 for the work of L.E. and J.R.K. for their work at PSL.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 155, + 490, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 288, + 213, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Elika Bergelson and Daniel Swingley. 2012. At 6-9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:3253-3258.", + "Samuel R. Bowman and George Dahl. 2021. What will it take to fix benchmarking in natural language understanding? Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4843-4855.", + "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-Rémi King. 2023. Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1-12.", + "Charlotte Caucheteux and Jean Rémi King. 2022. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications Biology, 5(1).", + "Tyler A. Chang and Benjamin K. Bergen. 2022. Word acquisition in neural language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1-16.", + "Nick Chater and Morten H Christiansen. 2018. Language acquisition as skill learning. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 21:205-208.", + "Noam Chomsky. 1959. Review of verbal behavior. 35(1):26-58. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America.", + "Noam Chomsky. 1971. *Problems of Knowledge and Freedom*. New York,: W.W. Norton.", + "Alexander Clark. 2002. Unsupervised language acquisition: Theory and practice. arXiv preprint cs/0212024.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova Google, and AI Language. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 309, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Emmanuel Dupoux. 2018. Cognitive science in the era of artificial intelligence: A roadmap for reverse-engineering the infant language-learner. Cognition, 173:43-59.", + "Naama Friedmann, Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi. 2021. Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1).", + "Naama Friedmann and Julia Reznick. 2021. Stages rather than ages in the acquisition of movement structures: Data from sentence repetition and 27696 spontaneous clauses. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1).", + "Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "John Hewitt and Christopher D Manning. 2019. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4129-4138.", + "Philip Huebner. 2022. Unmasked. https://github.com/phueb/UnMasked. (Accessed 2023/05/24).", + "Philip A Huebner, Elior Sulem, Cynthia Fisher, and Dan Roth. 2021. BabyBERTa : Learning More Grammar With Small-Scale Child-Directed Language. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 624-646.", + "Shailee Jain and Alexander Huth. 2018. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fmri. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3651-3657.", + "Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2019. Analysing neural language models: Contextual decomposition reveals default reasoning in number and gender assignment. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 1-11.", + "Fred Karlsson. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2):365-392." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12213", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Eugene Kharitonov and Rahma Chaabouni. 2020. What they do when in doubt: a study of inductive biases in seq2seq learners. arXiv:2006.14953.", + "Oren Kolodny, Arnon Lotem, and Shimon Edelman. 2015. Learning a generative probabilistic grammar of experience: A process-level model of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 39(2):227-267.", + "Patricia K. Kuhl. 2004. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5:831-843.", + "Patricia K Kuhl, Erica Stevens, Akiko Hayashi, Toshisada Deguchi, Shigeru Kiritani, and Paul Iverson. 2006. Fast-track report infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9:13-21.", + "Patricia K. Kuhl, Karen A. Williams, Francisco Lacerda, Kenneth N. Stevens, and Bjorn Lindblom. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255:606-608.", + "Yair Lakretz, Théo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021a. Causal transformers perform below chance on recursive nested constructions, unlike humans. arXiv:2110.07240.", + "Yair Lakretz, Dieuwke Hupkes, Alessandra Vergallito, Marco Marelli, Marco Baroni, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021b. Mechanisms for handling nested dependencies in neural-network language models and humans. Cognition, 213:104699. Special Issue in Honour of Jacques Mehler, Cognition's founding editor.", + "Yair Lakretz, German Kruszewski, Theo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, Stanislas Dehaene, and Marco Baroni. 2019. The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language models. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 11-20.", + "Marvin Lavechin, Maureen De Seyssel, Hadrien Titeux, Hervé Bredin, Guillaume Wisniewski, Alejandrina Cristia, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Statistical learning bootstraps early language acquisition. PsyArXiv.", + "Tal Linzen, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:521-535.", + "Christopher D. Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117:30046-30054.", + "Reiko Mazuka, Yvonne Cao, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Anne Christophe. 2011. The development of a phonological illusion: A cross-linguistic study with japanese and french infants. Developmental Science, 14:693-699." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Stewart M McCauley and Morten H Christiansen. 2019. Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. *Psychological review*, 126(1):1.", + "R Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140.", + "Jacques Mehler, Peter Jusczyk, Ghislaine Lambertz, Nilofar Halsted, Josiane Bertoncini, and Claudine Amiel-Tison. 1988. A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29:143-178.", + "Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv:1609.07843.", + "Thierry Nazzi, Peter W. Jusczyk, and Elizabeth K. Johnson. 2000. Language discrimination by english-learning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 43:1-19.", + "Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, John Hale, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2022. Neural language models are not born equal to fit brain data, but training helps. In ICML 2022-39th International Conference on Machine Learning, page 18.", + "Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2023. Information-restricted neural language models reveal different brain regions' sensitivity to semantics, syntax and context. arXiv:2302.14389.", + "Yada Pruksachatkun, Phil Yeres, Haokun Liu, Jason Phang, Phu Mon Htut, Alex Wang, Ian Tenney, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. jiant: A software toolkit for research on general-purpose text understanding models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. Semantic Scholar. (Accessed 2023-05-04).", + "Rushen Shi, Janet F Werker, and James L Morgan. 1999. Newborn infants' sensitivity to perceptual cues to lexical and grammatical words. Cognition, 72:B11-B21.", + "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv 2206.04615.", + "Ruth Tincoff and Peter W. Jusczyk. 1999. Some beginnings of word comprehension in 6-month-olds. Psychological Science, 10:172-175." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12214", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Mariya Toneva and Leila Wehbe. 2019. Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Alex Warstadt and Samuel R Bowman. 2022. What artificial neural networks can tell us about human language acquisition. arXiv:2208.07998.", + "Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mohananey, Wei Peng, Sheng Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. Erratum: \"blimp: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for english\". Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:867-868.", + "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641.", + "Lucas Weber, Jaap Jumelet, Elia Bruni, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2021. Language modelling as a multi-task problem. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2049-2060, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Janet F. Werker. 2018. Perceptual beginnings to language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39:703-728.", + "Janet F. Werker and Richard C. Tees. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. *Infant Behavior and Development*, 7:49–63.", + "Tania S. Zamuner. 2006. Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9- to 16-month-old infants. Infancy, 10:77-95." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 620, + 203, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Tests in Children", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 642, + 302, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Detailed description of tests available in children, in the three linguistic stages defined by (Friedmann et al., 2021):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 665, + 487, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Stage 1: Subject-Verb Simple, Subject-Verb Unaccusative, Verb-Subject Unaccusative", + "- Stage 2: Root WH-Argument, WH-Adjunct Excluding Why, Preposed Adverb, Root y/n", + "- Stage 3: Why, Relative Clause, Topicalisation, Embedding" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 725, + 487, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The probes chosen for comparison (stated in Table 1), were the only probes that matched well with one of the test available in children. In addition Nounpp was examined in the models, as it fits into", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the linguistic stage 2, and, as it is part of the BIG-Bench probes, could be separated into congruent and incongruent sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Model Training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 139, + 684, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate linguistic abilities of a high-performance language model, we first use the HuggingFace pretrained GPT-2 large which has 774M parameters and is trained on 40GB of data. This model has one-shot perplexity of 22 on WikiText103 (Radford et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 162, + 884, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, to evaluate how linguistic abilities vary with language acquisition, we separately trained 48 models (each with a distinct random seed which set the model's initial parameters and the seed of the datalocator) using the 12-layer GPT-2 architecture (Radford et al., 2019) provided by HuggingFace on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a learning rate of $10^{-5}$ and a batch size of 16 distributed over 8 GPUs, making a total batch size of 64 and a context size of 128. Training was stopped when then validation loss plateaued, reaching final perplexity of 28 after 10 epochs. This is lower perplexity than the one-shot performance of the HuggingFace pretrained 12-layer GPT-2 which was 37.5, which is logical as our model was trained specifically on this dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 258, + 882, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In all cases we used the pretrained tokenizer which has vocabulary size of 50,257. All other parameters were the default training arguments for the transformer provided by HuggingFace. The HuggingFace architectures are publicly available under an MIT license, and WikiText103 is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Linguistic Probe Benchmarks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 650, + 805, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use three different zero-shot benchmarks. The first benchmark, 'BLiMP' (The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English) (Warstadt et al., 2020) contains 67 different probes, each in the form of 1,000 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences designed to isolate a specific linguistic phenomenon. Adult human performance on BLiMP is $96.4\\%$ (Warstadt et al., 2020). The second benchmark, 'Zorro' $^{5}$ , was developed with a vocabulary frequent in child-directed corpora. Zorro contains 13 probes, each consisting of 2,000 pairs of sentences. Finally, the third benchmark is the Subject-Verb Agreement Task of BIG", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 673, + 884, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4 https://huggingface.co/gpt2", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 891, + 707, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{5}$ https://github.com/phueb/Zorro", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 731, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12215", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022; Lakretz et al., 2019, 2021b; Linzen et al., 2016; Gulordava et al., 2018). We focus on the syntactic probes, namely: \"Simple English\" which contains 600 pairs, \"NounPP\" which contains 2,400 pairs, and \"Short Nested Inner\", \"Short Nested Outer\", \"Long Nested Inner\" and \"Long Nested Outer\" which each contain 4,096 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Accuracy on a linguistic probe is evaluated with the Jiant (Pruksachatkun et al., 2020) and UnMasked method (Huebner, 2022). In practice, sentences are input to the model in batches of 300, with padding on the left to make all sentences the length of the longest sentence in the batch. The logit values of punctuation are discarded when estimating the probability of a sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 212, + 489, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zorro, Jiant and UnMasked are publicly available under the MIT License, BLiMP under a CC BY License, and BIG-Bench under the Apache License 2.0.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 342, + 489, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12216", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 127, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 231, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 231, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 212, + 695, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 231, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 255, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 490, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 215, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 347, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 363, + 231, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 390, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 407, + 231, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 498, + 231, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 524, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 573, + 231, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 599, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 632, + 231, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 658, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 740, + 231, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 765, + 495, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 215, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 813, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 846, + 231, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12217", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank.", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank.", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 880, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 293, + 877, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 880, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12218", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_model.json b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb1007f9838912b398791730de6ccd5242f6a273 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2890 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.087, + 0.868, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language acquisition: do children and language models follow similar learning stages?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.179, + 0.14, + 0.323, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linnea Evanson" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.159, + 0.297, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meta AI Paris;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.175, + 0.36, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.172, + 0.189, + 0.329, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ecole normale supérieure" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.199, + 0.298, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PSL University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.215, + 0.366, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "linnea.evanson8@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.44, + 0.14, + 0.561, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yair Lakretz*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.407, + 0.164, + 0.593, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.45, + 0.176, + 0.549, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CEA,INSERM" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.428, + 0.187, + 0.571, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Université Paris-Saclay" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.443, + 0.199, + 0.555, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NeuroSpin Center" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.398, + 0.215, + 0.601, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "yair.lakretz@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.678, + 0.14, + 0.828, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jean-Rémi King*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.704, + 0.159, + 0.796, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meta AI Paris;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.64, + 0.175, + 0.86, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.672, + 0.188, + 0.829, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ecole normale supérieure" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.702, + 0.199, + 0.797, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PSL University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.673, + 0.216, + 0.829, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "jeanremi@meta.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.342, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.462, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During language acquisition, children follow a typical sequence of learning stages, whereby they first learn to categorize phonemes before they develop their lexicon and eventually master increasingly complex syntactic structures. However, the computational principles that lead to this learning trajectory remain largely unknown. To investigate this, we here compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those of children. Specifically, we test whether, during its training, GPT-2 exhibits stages of language acquisition comparable to those observed in children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we train 48 GPT-2 models from scratch and evaluate their syntactic and semantic abilities at each training step, using 96 probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks. We then compare these evaluations with the behavior of 54 children during language production. Our analyses reveal three main findings. First, similarly to children, the language models tend to learn linguistic skills in a systematic order. Second, this learning scheme is parallel: the language tasks that are learned last improve from the very first training steps. Third, some – but not all – learning stages are shared between children and these language models. Overall, these results shed new light on the principles of language acquisition, and highlight important divergences in how humans and modern algorithms learn to process natural language." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.747, + 0.262, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.77, + 0.491, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language acquisition is marked by a series of successive stages (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). Within their first year of existence, humans infants successively acquire prosody contours (Mehler et al., 1988), phonetic categories (Werker and Tees, 1984; Kuhl et al., 1992; Mazuka et al., 2011) and frequent words (Tincoff and Jusczyk, 1999; Bergelson and Swingley, 2012)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "They then learn to produce basic syntactic structures (e.g. \"The boy sang\" or \"The boy fell\"), questions (e.g. \"What sound does a cow make?\") and nested syntactic structures (e.g. \"The boy that I saw sang\"), at approximately 12, 30, and 42 months, respectively (Friedmann et al., 2021). Even though some children may take slightly longer to learn than others, there is a set order in which children acquire various syntactic structures (Friedmann and Reznick, 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.418, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our understanding of the entire learning trajectory of children remains very coarse, however. This partly stems from the difficulty of measuring linguistic skills in young children. In babies, experimenters typically measure eye gaze and sucking rate while children process linguistic stimuli, as these reflexive behaviors are known to increase during surprising events. Such \"implicit\" approaches have successfully been used to assess whether nonspeaking infants detect linguistic violations (Zamuner, 2006), distinguish lexical from grammatical words (Shi et al., 1999) or discriminate their native language from a foreign language (Mehler et al., 1988; Kuhl et al., 2006; Nazzi et al., 2000). In older children, linguistic skills can also be more explicitly measured from spontaneous speech and sentence repetition. For example, a recent study by Friedmann et al. (2021), to which we compare our work in this paper, quantified the extent to which 18 month to 6 year-old children produce variably complex syntactic structures. For both of these approaches, however, the measures from children at such early ages can be noisy and fragmented." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interestingly, these issues do not apply to modern language models. Deep learning architectures trained to predict words from their proximal contexts have proved immensely effective at learning to process natural language (Radford et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019). Unlike humans, these algorithms can be easily probed during training, at any time point and rate, and with unlimited number of" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.271, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal Contribution" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12205" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 12205-12218" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.96, + 0.702, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "test stimuli, without interfering with their language acquisition (Jawahar et al., 2019; Manning et al., 2020; Bowman and Dahl, 2021). Furthermore, high-performing deep nets have been shown to implicitly (Lakretz et al., 2019; Gulordava et al., 2018) or explicitly learn to represent and use syntactic structures (Manning et al., 2020), as well as to use features such as concreteness and lexical class to learn language (Chang and Bergen, 2022). Finally, and importantly, these deep neural networks have recently been shown to represent lexical, syntactic and compositional representations similarly to the adult brain (Jain and Huth, 2018; Toneva and Wehbe, 2019; Caucheteux and King, 2022; Pasquiou et al., 2022, 2023; Caucheteux et al., 2023). Evidencing similar learning trajectories in children and language models could thus provide an invaluable framework to better understand the computational principles underlying language acquisition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.392, + 0.49, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, we compare the trajectory of language acquisition between human children and modern language models. We focus on three main questions. First, do these models learn linguistic skills in a systematic order? Second, is this trajectory sequential or parallel? Third, is this trajectory similar to that of children? These hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.52, + 0.49, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we train 48 GPT-2 architectures (Radford et al., 2019) from scratch, using a standard next-word prediction objective. We then evaluate, at each training step, their linguistic abilities with 96 semantic and syntactic probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks (Warstadt et al., 2020; Huebner et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). Finally, we compare a subset of these probes to the behavior of 54 children aged, between 18 months and 6 years (Friedmann et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.704, + 0.236, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Approach" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.728, + 0.298, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Language models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.75, + 0.49, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We consider two main language models. First, we use a pretrained language model – GPT-2 – as provided by HuggingFace and pretrained on 40 GB of data (Radford et al., 2019). Second, we separately train 48 versions of a 12-layer GPT-2 model from scratch. We train each model on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a distinct random seed to set its initial parameters and data-loader. Each model is evaluated on all linguistic probes every" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "100 training steps. Further training details are provided in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.124, + 0.766, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Zero-shot linguistic probes" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.147, + 0.885, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zero-shot linguistic probes are sentences or phrases crafted to evaluate whether a model has learned a particular linguistic skill, without training or finetuning the model on that particular skill. In practice, a zero-shot probe consists of comparing the estimated probability of a grammatical sentence with that of a matched ungrammatical sentence. This two-alternative forced-choice approach can be compared to \"acceptability judgements\", classically used in linguistics (Warstadt et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.308, + 0.885, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our models on 96 different linguistic probes, curated from three open source benchmarks, the details of which are presented in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.372, + 0.884, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we compare the probability of each sentence in a grammatical/ungrammatical pair by evaluating the sum of the logarithm of the loss output by the softmax layer:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.557, + 0.464, + 0.882, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {n _ {g}} \\log (f (X _ {g}) _ {i}) < \\sum_ {j = 0} ^ {n _ {u}} \\log (f (X _ {u}) _ {j}) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.52, + 0.884, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with \\(f\\) the softmax layer of the language model, \\(X_{g}\\) and \\(X_{u}\\) the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively, and \\(n_g\\) and \\(n_u\\), the number of tokens in the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.601, + 0.884, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The accuracy of a given probe is the percentage of pairs where the estimated probability of the grammatical sentence is higher than that of the ungrammatical sentence." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.672, + 0.783, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Assessing learning trajectory" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate whether the trajectory of language acquisition is shared across models, we rank the probes by their \"acquisition time\", i.e. the number of steps taken by a model to reach \\(90\\%\\) of its final accuracy on a particular probe, for each model independently. We then assess the correlation of ranks between all pairs of the 48 models and take the average of these correlations. To estimate the statistical significance of this average correlation we redo this calculation for all possible model pairs after shuffling the ranks of one of the models in each pair. We repeat this permutation 1,000 times, getting 1,000 values for this shuffled correlation. If in all cases this shuffled correlation is lower than" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.312, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1https://huggingface.co/gpt2" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12206" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the true average correlation, then the order of acquisition time is shared across models with \\( p < 0.001 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.14, + 0.434, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.4 Parallel versus Sequential learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.163, + 0.49, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language acquisition may be characterized by a \"sequential\" or a \"parallel\" learning scheme (Figure 1). \"Sequential\" learning designates the case where a complex skill does not start to be learned before simpler skills are mastered. By contrast, \"Parallel\" learning designates the case where all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. The null hypothesis is that the order in which an agent learns linguistic skills varies across agents. To determine the learning scheme of language models, we consider whether the probes have a positive derivative in the first three checkpoints (parallel learning) or not (sequential learning), and whether they have statistically different learning rates (by performing a one-way ANOVA test) across the three groups." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.428, + 0.475, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.5 Assessing linguistic skill from children's behavior" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.466, + 0.49, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Friedmann et al. (2021) studied 54 Hebrew-speaking children between the ages of 18 - 71 months and investigated the emergence of 11 linguistic phenomena, which the authors propose to organize into three stages (details in Appendix A). For our analysis we select the following tests, one from each stage:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.592, + 0.486, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Stage 1: Simple sentences in subject-verb (SV) order" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.637, + 0.327, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Stage 2: Wh Questions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.666, + 0.344, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Stage 3: Relative Clauses" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.592, + 0.486, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data collection consisted of spontaneous speech samples produced by each child at home. Each sample was then manually annotated to detect the presence of each of the linguistic phenomena. A linguistic phenomenon was considered learned if and only if it was present in the speech sample. Speech samples had a mean length of 151 utterances per sample and standard deviation of 37. The aggregated data was made available directly in the original paper (under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License), and here used for comparison with our language models. In Table 1 we show which probes in the models matched with these tests." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.609, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.107, + 0.885, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We aim to compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those observed in 54 children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we trained variants of GPT-2 models (Radford et al., 2019) from 48 different random seeds with the WikiText103 dataset (Merit et al., 2016) and evaluated each model on 96 linguistic probes every 100 steps." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.236, + 0.885, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "At the end of this training, 64 probes (66%) were achieved above chance level (50% accuracy) by all models. In comparison, a pretrained version of GPT-2 large (Radford et al., 2019) provided by Hugging Face\\(^2\\), and trained on a much larger dataset\\(^3\\), achieves above-chance performance on 93 of the 96 probes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.354, + 0.809, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 A systematic learning trajectory" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.376, + 0.885, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For clarity, we focus on the learning dynamics of the probes that ultimately achieve above-chance performance in our training. Figure 2 lists all probes learned above chance level, ordered by their average acquisition time. We perform the permutation analysis outlined in 2.3, to evaluate whether the order of acquisition is shared between models, and find that their order of acquisition is correlated with \\( R = 0.743 \\) and \\( p < 0.001 \\). These results suggest that there is a systematic learning trajectory among models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.558, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Learning is parallel across linguistic tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.579, + 0.884, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Are these linguistic skills learned sequentially or in parallel (Figure 1)? To address this question, we evaluate whether each linguistic probe starts to improve from the very first training steps but with different rates (i.e. a \"parallel\" learning scheme) or, on the contrary, whether some probes only start to improve once others have reached a particular performance (i.e. a \"sequential\" learning scheme). As the individual learning trajectories of each probe were noisy, we group the 64 linguistic probes into three categories: early, middle and late acquisition time (Figure 3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.773, + 0.884, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall, we observe parallel learning between the three groups: their performances all increase from the beginning of training: \\(95\\%\\) of tests in all three groups have a positive derivative within the first three hundred steps. However, they have different learning rates, as evaluated with a one-way ANOVA test on the learning rate (i.e. change" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.891, + 0.833, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://huggingface.co/tftransformers/gpt2-large" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.905, + 0.835, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{3}{40}\\mathrm{{GB}} \\) compared to the \\( {181}\\mathrm{{MB}} \\) of WikiText103" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.891, + 0.835, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12207" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.085, + 0.379, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.384, + 0.084, + 0.631, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.631, + 0.084, + 0.882, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.245, + 0.885, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Hypotheses. Skill performance (y-axis) as a function of training (x-axis) illustrated on three tasks (colors) and two agents (model or children). Sequential learning implies that the learning of a complex skill (e.g. C, shown in red) does not start before simplest skills (e.g. A in green and B in blue) are fully learned. Parallel learning implies that all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. Sequential and parallel learning may cross an arbitrary performance threshold at the same training step. The frequency at which we can probe artificial networks during learning is much greater than what is realistically possible in children, giving us the timescale granularity to distinguish sequential and parallel learning trajectories. We also present a null hypothesis, that artificial networks with different random seeds may learn skills in a different order." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.372, + 0.86, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StageChildrenLanguage Model
1Simple sentences in Subject-Verb (SV) orderSV agreement across simple sentences
2Wh-questionsSV agreement in questions
3Relative Clauses (RCs)SV agreement across object RCs
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.45, + 0.851, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Linguistic phenomena in children selected for comparison with probes in the language models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.491, + 0.489, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of accuracy over time) obtained in each group and in each model \\((p < 10^{-23})\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.53, + 0.369, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Comparison with children" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.552, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Do these learning trajectories match the behavior of human children? For the three probes that correspond to the three stages identified in children's language acquisition (Table 1), we observe that the order in which these three probes are learned by the language models is the same as those of children (Figure 4). This effect is robust across random seeds: 46 of our 48 GPT-2 models follows this order, where chance level is \\((1/3!)^{46} = 1.60e^{-36}\\). For this subset of language abilities, models and children thus seem to acquire syntactic skills in a similar order." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.752, + 0.488, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Learning of theoretically-defined stages is parallel" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In part 3.1, we showed that GPT-2 learns its language abilities in parallel. Does this learning scheme also characterize the three syntactic skills investigated in children? To address this question, we now look at the learning curves of the skills defined in Table 1, as well as an additional probe: Nounpp, as it can be separated into congruent and incongruent cases which is important for the anal" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.491, + 0.885, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ysis in section 3.5. Overall, we observe that these probes are all learned in parallel in the model (Figure 5A)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.554, + 0.855, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Models use both syntax and heuristics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.582, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Both an understanding of syntactic rules and a superficial heuristics can lead to above-chance performances on these probes. Indeed, in many sentences (e.g. The cat [subject] of the lady [attractor] is [verb] hungry.), the number of the verb is congruent with the number of the adjacent attractor, even if the two are not related syntactically. To verify that the GPT-2 models effectively learn the syntactic rules, we thus separately examine congruent and incongruent cases. Incongruent cases require knowledge of the syntax of the sentence as the correct verb number is different from the number of the attractor. Empirically, we observe that the models do not learn the incongruent case in stage three above chance level, and just barely reach chance level on the incongruent case in stage two (Figure 5B), indicating that our models are using heuristics rather than syntactic rules to achieve high accuracy on the congruent cases (leading to above chance performance on the probe overall in Figure 5A). On the contrary, the pretrained GPT" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12208" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.084, + 0.881, + 0.695 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.708, + 0.884, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The performance of the models on each linguistic probe over time is smoothed using a moving average filter with window size of 6 checkpoints then the number of steps required to reach \\(90\\%\\) of final accuracy (acquisition time) is calculated. Probes are ordered by increasing average acquisition time. Results shown for 48 models. Only probes which have final accuracy greater than chance \\((50\\%)\\) are shown. This demonstrates that probes tend to be learned in the same order by all agents with \\(\\mathrm{R} = 0.743\\), \\(\\mathrm{p} < 0.001\\), disproving the null hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.805, + 0.491, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 large achieves above \\(75\\%\\) accuracy also on the incongruent cases of these probes. Thus for the models trained on the WikiText103, syntax is only learned for stages one and two, and heuristics seem to explain the above chance accuracy in stage three. A larger training dataset is required to learn syntax and not only heuristics for the most difficult" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.805, + 0.589, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "examples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.831, + 0.882, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.6 Impact of number biases in congruent and incongruent sentences" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In previous work, it was found that a variety of language models have a bias towards plural English verbs, and several studies (Jumelet et al., 2019;" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12209" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.085, + 0.482, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.315, + 0.49, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Linguistic probes grouped into 3 groups to avoid plotting one line per probe. The probes in each group correspond to the colours in Figure 2. Probes which have final accuracy less than chance (50%) are placed in their own group, and tend to zero likely due to biases towards plural verbs in English (c.f. 3.6). Shading is standard error of the mean across probes in the group. This figure demonstrates that linguistic skills are learned in parallel not in sequence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.47, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lakretz et al., 2021a,b) determined that LSTM-based models have a default number and gender prediction preference. To examine whether number bias has a significant effect on our analysis, we compare congruent sentences with only singular or only plural verbs and incongruent sentences with a plural or a singular verb. Accuracy on predicting plural verbs increases sharply from the start of the training and then drops. By contrast, the accuracy of singular cases first drops and then rises (Figure 5C), indicating that the models are biased towards plural verbs at the beginning of training. This bias is overcome for the stage one probe but for stage two and three it remains throughout training. This explains the initial downward trend in Group 3 and why the unlearned probes tend toward zero in Figure 3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.751, + 0.242, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The stages followed by children to acquire language has been the topic of intense research (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). While this learning trajectory is becoming clearer for sublexical representations (Dupoux, 2018), the acquisition of higher-level syntactic and semantic processing remains largely unclear. Here, we approach this long-lasting question through the lens of a deep language architecture, GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to test whether this model follows a learning trajectory similar to children." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.132, + 0.869, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Language acquisition: similarities and differences between humans and GPT-2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.175, + 0.885, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, we show that GPT-2 models tend to learn a battery of linguistic phenomena (Warstadt et al., 2020; Lakretz et al., 2019; Huebner et al., 2021) in a consistent order. It is the reliability of the acquisition trajectory that allows a direct comparison with the learning trajectory of children (Friedmann et al., 2021). However, this consistency in GPT-2 models may result from two non-mutually exclusive factors, that remain to be disentangled: either the acquisition time of each linguistic phenomenon relates to its frequency in natural language (e.g. Simple subject-verb-complement are more frequent in natural language than nested syntactic structures; Karlsson 2007), and/or it relates to their intrinsic complexity (e.g. sentences with nested structure require more operations to be composed than simple sentences). Future work systematically controlling for these relative frequencies is thus necessary to distinguish these two possibilities, and would build upon work by Weber et al. (2021) who found that less frequent linguistic phenomena can be learned from fewer examples, though later in training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, we show that the order in which linguistic skills are acquired is similar between children and GPT-2 – at least on the syntactic phenomena that were evaluated in these two cohorts, and with the limitation of using number agreement as a proxy to whether the models acquire the corresponding syntactic structure. Similarly to children, GPT-2 models master subject-verb agreement in SV sentences before they master it in questions, or across nested center-embedded clauses (object-relative clauses). This result thus complements a series of studies comparing modern language models and humans. For example, a recent study showed that transformers trained on child-directed data can achieve comparable accuracy on linguistic probes to large pre-trained models (Huebner et al., 2021). Similarly, several studies have recently shown that the representations of GPT-2 become increasingly similar to those of the adult human brain during its training (Caucheteux and King, 2022). Finally, Lavechin et al. (2022) showed that models trained on audio in a self-supervised fashion learn phoneme and lexical abilities in a similar trajectory to children." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12210" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.085, + 0.881, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.192, + 0.885, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Comparing language model performance on linguistic probes to children's performance. Example sentences observed in children were originally in Hebrew (Friedmann et al., 2021). Non-white indicates the phenomena is learned by the agent. The threshold for considering a probe learned by the model is performance above \\(55\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.266, + 0.486, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.274, + 0.876, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.466, + 0.373, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.377, + 0.481, + 0.616, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.62, + 0.466, + 0.876, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.492, + 0.654, + 0.507, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.677, + 0.885, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Subject verb agreement. Shading is standard error of the mean across seeds. S: Singular. P: Plural. A. Parallel learning is observed in the three stages defined by Friedmann et al. (2021), when results are averaged across congruent and incongruent cases. B. Subject verb agreement on incongruent cases which indicate whether the model understands syntax. The networks do not learn some syntax structures as the incongruent case of Short Nested Outer does not reach above chance level. C. Development trajectories of the bias towards plural number in English." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.775, + 0.312, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 A work in progress" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.803, + 0.489, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is important to stress that significant work remains to be done before drawing any definitive conclusions about the similarities between language acquisition in humans and algorithms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, we only consider a single architecture (GPT-2, Radford et al. (2019)) with a unique textual corpus (WikiText103). Testing whether our" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.883, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "results hold true independently of the model and training corpus remains an important milestone for future research." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, linguistic abilities are not tested with the same protocols in children and in the models: the models are explicitly tested on next word prediction, with a two-alternative forced-choice metric, whereas children were implicitly evaluated on their ability to spontaneously use specific syntactic struc" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12211" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.322, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tures during natural speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.102, + 0.489, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Third, there were only three linguistic features that were directly comparable between the model probes and the data in children, and all were syntactic. This leaves a significant margin of progress to modulate our conclusion, and investigate whether the lexicon, narrative structures, pragmatics and world-knowledge are acquired in the same order in humans and algorithms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.231, + 0.49, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fourth, the order in which some linguistic skills were learned by GPT-2 does not trivially fit with linguistic theory. For example, the probe \"Simple\", which examines subject-verb agreement in a simple sentence, was one of the last probes to be learned by GPT-2 (it is part of group three in Figure 2). By contrast, \"Wh Questions Subject Gap Long Distance\" was among the first probes to be to be learned, even though it would be expected to be much harder than \"Simple\". This unexpected result may be due to the way we approximate \"Acquisition Time\", namely, the moment when the probes reaches \\(90\\%\\) of the final accuracy. Consequently, probes with very low final accuracy could end up with a shorter Acquisition Time, because noise may lead to crossing the \\(90\\%\\) threshold relatively quickly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.49, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we show that our models appear to use heuristics rather than a deep understanding of syntax for the most difficult linguistic probes (incongruent numbers between verbs and their attractors) and were biased towards plural English verbs. While our models learn only \\(66\\%\\) of tasks to above chance level, a larger GPT-2 pretrained on considerably more texts successfully perform on \\(97\\%\\) of the tasks, and has an accuracy above \\(75\\%\\) on the incongruent examples, meaning this bias and reliance on heuristics could potentially be solved by training on a larger dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.699, + 0.49, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In sum, additional work remains necessary to identify the exact elements of convergence and divergence between the acquisition of language in models and in children." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.769, + 0.449, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Fueling the debate between nativism versus empiricism" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The present study fuels a long-lasting debate on the acquisition of language. While \"empiricists\" argue that language can be acquired with a statistical approach (Clark, 2002; Kolodny et al., 2015; Chater and Christiansen, 2018; McCauley and Christiansen, 2019), \"nativists\" maintain that this ability depends on a core and innate operation, spe" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.81, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cific to humans (Chomsky, 1959, 1971)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.102, + 0.885, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The present study shows how modern language models may contribute to resolving this debate, by systematically studying which components of a model (e.g. architecture) or properties of the training data (e.g., frequency of sentence structures) contribute to shape the trajectory of language acquisition. Claims about an innate Universal Grammar could be understood as an inductive bias of a language model, implemented in its architecture and dynamics, which tightly constrains learning trajectories across models. If this bias is hierarchical (rather than linear) then this could lead to learning trajectories that follow the structure of the syntactic tree, consistently with the hypothesis of three linguistic stages presented by Friedmann et al. (2021) in humans and what we find in this study in language models. Indeed, neural language models have been previously shown to have a weak inductive bias towards hierarchical processing (McCoy et al., 2020; Kharitonov and Chaabouni, 2020), which can partially explain our results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.44, + 0.885, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This result echos the recent observation that syntactic trees spontaneously emerge in the middle layers of neural language models (Hewitt and Manning, 2019). Together, these elements thus suggest that modern neural networks provide fruitful models of language acquisition and could reconcile or settle the confronting theories of language acquisition (Warstadt and Bowman, 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.574, + 0.645, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.595, + 0.885, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall, the similarities identified between children and GPT-2 suggest that there may be a small set of means by which to efficiently acquire language. This result is anything but trivial: humans and deep neural networks have extraordinarily different architectures, training, and language exposure. If generalized, this systematic learning trajectory would support the existence of an intrinsic hierarchy of linguistic structures that both machines and humans must climb, be that through inductive biases or properties of the training data, to master the faculty of language. And while these hypotheses remain open, the path to resolve them has never been clearer." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12212" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.287, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.107, + 0.49, + 0.154 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to thank Dieuwke Hupkes, Naama Friedmann, Marco Baroni and the attendees of the EviL meetings for their comments and suggestions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.156, + 0.491, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 945304, for L.E for her work at PSL. This work was funded in part by FrontCog grant ANR-17-EURE-0017 for the work of L.E. and J.R.K. for their work at PSL." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.29, + 0.214, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.31, + 0.489, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elika Bergelson and Daniel Swingley. 2012. At 6-9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:3253-3258." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.372, + 0.487, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samuel R. Bowman and George Dahl. 2021. What will it take to fix benchmarking in natural language understanding? Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4843-4855." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.46, + 0.49, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-Rémi King. 2023. Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1-12." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.522, + 0.49, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux and Jean Rémi King. 2022. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications Biology, 5(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.57, + 0.489, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tyler A. Chang and Benjamin K. Bergen. 2022. Word acquisition in neural language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1-16." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.632, + 0.489, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nick Chater and Morten H Christiansen. 2018. Language acquisition as skill learning. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 21:205-208." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.681, + 0.49, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noam Chomsky. 1959. Review of verbal behavior. 35(1):26-58. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.729, + 0.489, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noam Chomsky. 1971. *Problems of Knowledge and Freedom*. New York,: W.W. Norton." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.765, + 0.49, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Clark. 2002. Unsupervised language acquisition: Theory and practice. arXiv preprint cs/0212024." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.814, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova Google, and AI Language. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.31, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emmanuel Dupoux. 2018. Cognitive science in the era of artificial intelligence: A roadmap for reverse-engineering the infant language-learner. Cognition, 173:43-59." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.151, + 0.885, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Naama Friedmann, Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi. 2021. Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.216, + 0.885, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Naama Friedmann and Julia Reznick. 2021. Stages rather than ages in the acquisition of movement structures: Data from sentence repetition and 27696 spontaneous clauses. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.294, + 0.885, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.424, + 0.885, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Hewitt and Christopher D Manning. 2019. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4129-4138." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.515, + 0.885, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philip Huebner. 2022. Unmasked. https://github.com/phueb/UnMasked. (Accessed 2023/05/24)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.567, + 0.885, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philip A Huebner, Elior Sulem, Cynthia Fisher, and Dan Roth. 2021. BabyBERTa : Learning More Grammar With Small-Scale Child-Directed Language. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 624-646." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.645, + 0.885, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shailee Jain and Alexander Huth. 2018. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fmri. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3651-3657." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.788, + 0.885, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2019. Analysing neural language models: Contextual decomposition reveals default reasoning in number and gender assignment. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 1-11." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.878, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fred Karlsson. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2):365-392." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12213" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov and Rahma Chaabouni. 2020. What they do when in doubt: a study of inductive biases in seq2seq learners. arXiv:2006.14953." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.134, + 0.487, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oren Kolodny, Arnon Lotem, and Shimon Edelman. 2015. Learning a generative probabilistic grammar of experience: A process-level model of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 39(2):227-267." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.196, + 0.487, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patricia K. Kuhl. 2004. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5:831-843." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.244, + 0.487, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patricia K Kuhl, Erica Stevens, Akiko Hayashi, Toshisada Deguchi, Shigeru Kiritani, and Paul Iverson. 2006. Fast-track report infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9:13-21." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.332, + 0.487, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patricia K. Kuhl, Karen A. Williams, Francisco Lacerda, Kenneth N. Stevens, and Bjorn Lindblom. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255:606-608." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.393, + 0.487, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yair Lakretz, Théo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021a. Causal transformers perform below chance on recursive nested constructions, unlike humans. arXiv:2110.07240." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.454, + 0.487, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yair Lakretz, Dieuwke Hupkes, Alessandra Vergallito, Marco Marelli, Marco Baroni, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021b. Mechanisms for handling nested dependencies in neural-network language models and humans. Cognition, 213:104699. Special Issue in Honour of Jacques Mehler, Cognition's founding editor." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.542, + 0.487, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yair Lakretz, German Kruszewski, Theo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, Stanislas Dehaene, and Marco Baroni. 2019. The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language models. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 11-20." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.616, + 0.487, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marvin Lavechin, Maureen De Seyssel, Hadrien Titeux, Hervé Bredin, Guillaume Wisniewski, Alejandrina Cristia, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Statistical learning bootstraps early language acquisition. PsyArXiv." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.691, + 0.487, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tal Linzen, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:521-535." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.765, + 0.487, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christopher D. Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117:30046-30054." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.487, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reiko Mazuka, Yvonne Cao, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Anne Christophe. 2011. The development of a phonological illusion: A cross-linguistic study with japanese and french infants. Developmental Science, 14:693-699." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stewart M McCauley and Morten H Christiansen. 2019. Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. *Psychological review*, 126(1):1." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.883, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "R Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.224, + 0.883, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacques Mehler, Peter Jusczyk, Ghislaine Lambertz, Nilofar Halsted, Josiane Bertoncini, and Claudine Amiel-Tison. 1988. A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29:143-178." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.287, + 0.883, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv:1609.07843." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.336, + 0.883, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thierry Nazzi, Peter W. Jusczyk, and Elizabeth K. Johnson. 2000. Language discrimination by english-learning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 43:1-19." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.399, + 0.883, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, John Hale, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2022. Neural language models are not born equal to fit brain data, but training helps. In ICML 2022-39th International Conference on Machine Learning, page 18." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.474, + 0.883, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2023. Information-restricted neural language models reveal different brain regions' sensitivity to semantics, syntax and context. arXiv:2302.14389." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.55, + 0.883, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yada Pruksachatkun, Phil Yeres, Haokun Liu, Jason Phang, Phu Mon Htut, Alex Wang, Ian Tenney, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. jiant: A software toolkit for research on general-purpose text understanding models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.665, + 0.883, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. Semantic Scholar. (Accessed 2023-05-04)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.727, + 0.883, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rushen Shi, Janet F Werker, and James L Morgan. 1999. Newborn infants' sensitivity to perceptual cues to lexical and grammatical words. Cognition, 72:B11-B21." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.79, + 0.883, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv 2206.04615." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.878, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruth Tincoff and Peter W. Jusczyk. 1999. Some beginnings of word comprehension in 6-month-olds. Psychological Science, 10:172-175." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12214" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mariya Toneva and Leila Wehbe. 2019. Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.162, + 0.488, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Warstadt and Samuel R Bowman. 2022. What artificial neural networks can tell us about human language acquisition. arXiv:2208.07998." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.49, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mohananey, Wei Peng, Sheng Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. Erratum: \"blimp: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for english\". Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:867-868." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.302, + 0.488, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.365, + 0.488, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lucas Weber, Jaap Jumelet, Elia Bruni, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2021. Language modelling as a multi-task problem. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2049-2060, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.454, + 0.488, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Janet F. Werker. 2018. Perceptual beginnings to language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39:703-728." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.504, + 0.488, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Janet F. Werker and Richard C. Tees. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. *Infant Behavior and Development*, 7:49–63." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.567, + 0.488, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tania S. Zamuner. 2006. Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9- to 16-month-old infants. Infancy, 10:77-95." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.621, + 0.204, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.643, + 0.303, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Tests in Children" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.666, + 0.489, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Detailed description of tests available in children, in the three linguistic stages defined by (Friedmann et al., 2021):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.726, + 0.486, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Stage 1: Subject-Verb Simple, Subject-Verb Unaccusative, Verb-Subject Unaccusative" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.769, + 0.486, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Stage 2: Root WH-Argument, WH-Adjunct Excluding Why, Preposed Adverb, Root y/n" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.812, + 0.488, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Stage 3: Why, Relative Clause, Topicalisation, Embedding" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.726, + 0.488, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The probes chosen for comparison (stated in Table 1), were the only probes that matched well with one of the test available in children. In addition Nounpp was examined in the models, as it fits into" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the linguistic stage 2, and, as it is part of the BIG-Bench probes, could be separated into congruent and incongruent sentences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.14, + 0.685, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Model Training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.163, + 0.885, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate linguistic abilities of a high-performance language model, we first use the HuggingFace pretrained GPT-2 large which has 774M parameters and is trained on 40GB of data. This model has one-shot perplexity of 22 on WikiText103 (Radford et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.259, + 0.884, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, to evaluate how linguistic abilities vary with language acquisition, we separately trained 48 models (each with a distinct random seed which set the model's initial parameters and the seed of the datalocator) using the 12-layer GPT-2 architecture (Radford et al., 2019) provided by HuggingFace on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a learning rate of \\(10^{-5}\\) and a batch size of 16 distributed over 8 GPUs, making a total batch size of 64 and a context size of 128. Training was stopped when then validation loss plateaued, reaching final perplexity of 28 after 10 epochs. This is lower perplexity than the one-shot performance of the HuggingFace pretrained 12-layer GPT-2 which was 37.5, which is logical as our model was trained specifically on this dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.884, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In all cases we used the pretrained tokenizer which has vocabulary size of 50,257. All other parameters were the default training arguments for the transformer provided by HuggingFace. The HuggingFace architectures are publicly available under an MIT license, and WikiText103 is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.651, + 0.806, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Linguistic Probe Benchmarks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.674, + 0.885, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use three different zero-shot benchmarks. The first benchmark, 'BLiMP' (The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English) (Warstadt et al., 2020) contains 67 different probes, each in the form of 1,000 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences designed to isolate a specific linguistic phenomenon. Adult human performance on BLiMP is \\(96.4\\%\\) (Warstadt et al., 2020). The second benchmark, 'Zorro' \\(^{5}\\), was developed with a vocabulary frequent in child-directed corpora. Zorro contains 13 probes, each consisting of 2,000 pairs of sentences. Finally, the third benchmark is the Subject-Verb Agreement Task of BIG" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.892, + 0.708, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 https://huggingface.co/gpt2" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.732, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{5}\\)https://github.com/phueb/Zorro" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.892, + 0.732, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12215" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022; Lakretz et al., 2019, 2021b; Linzen et al., 2016; Gulordava et al., 2018). We focus on the syntactic probes, namely: \"Simple English\" which contains 600 pairs, \"NounPP\" which contains 2,400 pairs, and \"Short Nested Inner\", \"Short Nested Outer\", \"Long Nested Inner\" and \"Long Nested Outer\" which each contain 4,096 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.214, + 0.49, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Accuracy on a linguistic probe is evaluated with the Jiant (Pruksachatkun et al., 2020) and UnMasked method (Huebner, 2022). In practice, sentences are input to the model in batches of 300, with padding on the left to make all sentences the length of the longest sentence in the batch. The logit values of punctuation are discarded when estimating the probability of a sentence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.343, + 0.49, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zorro, Jiant and UnMasked are publicly available under the MIT License, BLiMP under a CC BY License, and BIG-Bench under the Apache License 2.0." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12216" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.128, + 0.533, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.145, + 0.233, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.171, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.188, + 0.233, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.214, + 0.696, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.231, + 0.233, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.256, + 0.669, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.274, + 0.233, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.492, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.216, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.348, + 0.531, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.365, + 0.233, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.408, + 0.233, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.499, + 0.233, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.574, + 0.233, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.633, + 0.233, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.741, + 0.233, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.766, + 0.496, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.788, + 0.216, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.814, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.847, + 0.233, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12217" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.144, + 0.881, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.219, + 0.881, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.881, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.881, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.881, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.475, + 0.881, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.881, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.881, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12218" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_origin.pdf b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72bf7c7ca59cab9136aebd3861de2a235930c150 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/6b7349d3-6e5d-4155-ae82-6dcafa1b591d_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6c55f47a8f538e1823176b0b3677bfdd40e0d1bc18e3940810c1996eb8e1f33c +size 609174 diff --git a/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/full.md b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c088691df3a5a99e19e58768fb1cb0aecbf4cbdd --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ +# Language acquisition: do children and language models follow similar learning stages? + +Linnea Evanson + +Meta AI Paris; + +Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs + +Ecole normale supérieure + +PSL University + +linnea.evanson8@gmail.com + +Yair Lakretz* + +Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit + +CEA,INSERM + +Université Paris-Saclay + +NeuroSpin Center + +yair.lakretz@gmail.com + +Jean-Rémi King* + +Meta AI Paris; + +Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs + +Ecole normale supérieure + +PSL University + +jeanremi@meta.com + +# Abstract + +During language acquisition, children follow a typical sequence of learning stages, whereby they first learn to categorize phonemes before they develop their lexicon and eventually master increasingly complex syntactic structures. However, the computational principles that lead to this learning trajectory remain largely unknown. To investigate this, we here compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those of children. Specifically, we test whether, during its training, GPT-2 exhibits stages of language acquisition comparable to those observed in children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we train 48 GPT-2 models from scratch and evaluate their syntactic and semantic abilities at each training step, using 96 probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks. We then compare these evaluations with the behavior of 54 children during language production. Our analyses reveal three main findings. First, similarly to children, the language models tend to learn linguistic skills in a systematic order. Second, this learning scheme is parallel: the language tasks that are learned last improve from the very first training steps. Third, some – but not all – learning stages are shared between children and these language models. Overall, these results shed new light on the principles of language acquisition, and highlight important divergences in how humans and modern algorithms learn to process natural language. + +# 1 Introduction + +Language acquisition is marked by a series of successive stages (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). Within their first year of existence, humans infants successively acquire prosody contours (Mehler et al., 1988), phonetic categories (Werker and Tees, 1984; Kuhl et al., 1992; Mazuka et al., 2011) and frequent words (Tincoff and Jusczyk, 1999; Bergelson and Swingley, 2012). + +They then learn to produce basic syntactic structures (e.g. "The boy sang" or "The boy fell"), questions (e.g. "What sound does a cow make?") and nested syntactic structures (e.g. "The boy that I saw sang"), at approximately 12, 30, and 42 months, respectively (Friedmann et al., 2021). Even though some children may take slightly longer to learn than others, there is a set order in which children acquire various syntactic structures (Friedmann and Reznick, 2021). + +Our understanding of the entire learning trajectory of children remains very coarse, however. This partly stems from the difficulty of measuring linguistic skills in young children. In babies, experimenters typically measure eye gaze and sucking rate while children process linguistic stimuli, as these reflexive behaviors are known to increase during surprising events. Such "implicit" approaches have successfully been used to assess whether nonspeaking infants detect linguistic violations (Zamuner, 2006), distinguish lexical from grammatical words (Shi et al., 1999) or discriminate their native language from a foreign language (Mehler et al., 1988; Kuhl et al., 2006; Nazzi et al., 2000). In older children, linguistic skills can also be more explicitly measured from spontaneous speech and sentence repetition. For example, a recent study by Friedmann et al. (2021), to which we compare our work in this paper, quantified the extent to which 18 month to 6 year-old children produce variably complex syntactic structures. For both of these approaches, however, the measures from children at such early ages can be noisy and fragmented. + +Interestingly, these issues do not apply to modern language models. Deep learning architectures trained to predict words from their proximal contexts have proved immensely effective at learning to process natural language (Radford et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019). Unlike humans, these algorithms can be easily probed during training, at any time point and rate, and with unlimited number of + +test stimuli, without interfering with their language acquisition (Jawahar et al., 2019; Manning et al., 2020; Bowman and Dahl, 2021). Furthermore, high-performing deep nets have been shown to implicitly (Lakretz et al., 2019; Gulordava et al., 2018) or explicitly learn to represent and use syntactic structures (Manning et al., 2020), as well as to use features such as concreteness and lexical class to learn language (Chang and Bergen, 2022). Finally, and importantly, these deep neural networks have recently been shown to represent lexical, syntactic and compositional representations similarly to the adult brain (Jain and Huth, 2018; Toneva and Wehbe, 2019; Caucheteux and King, 2022; Pasquiou et al., 2022, 2023; Caucheteux et al., 2023). Evidencing similar learning trajectories in children and language models could thus provide an invaluable framework to better understand the computational principles underlying language acquisition. + +Here, we compare the trajectory of language acquisition between human children and modern language models. We focus on three main questions. First, do these models learn linguistic skills in a systematic order? Second, is this trajectory sequential or parallel? Third, is this trajectory similar to that of children? These hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 1. + +Specifically, we train 48 GPT-2 architectures (Radford et al., 2019) from scratch, using a standard next-word prediction objective. We then evaluate, at each training step, their linguistic abilities with 96 semantic and syntactic probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks (Warstadt et al., 2020; Huebner et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). Finally, we compare a subset of these probes to the behavior of 54 children aged, between 18 months and 6 years (Friedmann et al., 2021). + +# 2 Approach + +# 2.1 Language models + +We consider two main language models. First, we use a pretrained language model – GPT-2 – as provided by HuggingFace and pretrained on 40 GB of data (Radford et al., 2019). Second, we separately train 48 versions of a 12-layer GPT-2 model from scratch. We train each model on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a distinct random seed to set its initial parameters and data-loader. Each model is evaluated on all linguistic probes every + +100 training steps. Further training details are provided in Appendix B. + +# 2.2 Zero-shot linguistic probes + +Zero-shot linguistic probes are sentences or phrases crafted to evaluate whether a model has learned a particular linguistic skill, without training or finetuning the model on that particular skill. In practice, a zero-shot probe consists of comparing the estimated probability of a grammatical sentence with that of a matched ungrammatical sentence. This two-alternative forced-choice approach can be compared to "acceptability judgements", classically used in linguistics (Warstadt et al., 2019). + +We evaluate our models on 96 different linguistic probes, curated from three open source benchmarks, the details of which are presented in Appendix C. + +Specifically, we compare the probability of each sentence in a grammatical/ungrammatical pair by evaluating the sum of the logarithm of the loss output by the softmax layer: + +$$ +\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {n _ {g}} \log (f (X _ {g}) _ {i}) < \sum_ {j = 0} ^ {n _ {u}} \log (f (X _ {u}) _ {j}) \tag {1} +$$ + +with $f$ the softmax layer of the language model, $X_{g}$ and $X_{u}$ the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively, and $n_g$ and $n_u$ , the number of tokens in the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively. + +The accuracy of a given probe is the percentage of pairs where the estimated probability of the grammatical sentence is higher than that of the ungrammatical sentence. + +# 2.3 Assessing learning trajectory + +To evaluate whether the trajectory of language acquisition is shared across models, we rank the probes by their "acquisition time", i.e. the number of steps taken by a model to reach $90\%$ of its final accuracy on a particular probe, for each model independently. We then assess the correlation of ranks between all pairs of the 48 models and take the average of these correlations. To estimate the statistical significance of this average correlation we redo this calculation for all possible model pairs after shuffling the ranks of one of the models in each pair. We repeat this permutation 1,000 times, getting 1,000 values for this shuffled correlation. If in all cases this shuffled correlation is lower than + +the true average correlation, then the order of acquisition time is shared across models with $p < 0.001$ . + +# 2.4 Parallel versus Sequential learning + +Language acquisition may be characterized by a "sequential" or a "parallel" learning scheme (Figure 1). "Sequential" learning designates the case where a complex skill does not start to be learned before simpler skills are mastered. By contrast, "Parallel" learning designates the case where all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. The null hypothesis is that the order in which an agent learns linguistic skills varies across agents. To determine the learning scheme of language models, we consider whether the probes have a positive derivative in the first three checkpoints (parallel learning) or not (sequential learning), and whether they have statistically different learning rates (by performing a one-way ANOVA test) across the three groups. + +# 2.5 Assessing linguistic skill from children's behavior + +Friedmann et al. (2021) studied 54 Hebrew-speaking children between the ages of 18 - 71 months and investigated the emergence of 11 linguistic phenomena, which the authors propose to organize into three stages (details in Appendix A). For our analysis we select the following tests, one from each stage: + +- Stage 1: Simple sentences in subject-verb (SV) order +- Stage 2: Wh Questions +- Stage 3: Relative Clauses + +Data collection consisted of spontaneous speech samples produced by each child at home. Each sample was then manually annotated to detect the presence of each of the linguistic phenomena. A linguistic phenomenon was considered learned if and only if it was present in the speech sample. Speech samples had a mean length of 151 utterances per sample and standard deviation of 37. The aggregated data was made available directly in the original paper (under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License), and here used for comparison with our language models. In Table 1 we show which probes in the models matched with these tests. + +# 3 Results + +We aim to compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those observed in 54 children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we trained variants of GPT-2 models (Radford et al., 2019) from 48 different random seeds with the WikiText103 dataset (Merit et al., 2016) and evaluated each model on 96 linguistic probes every 100 steps. + +At the end of this training, 64 probes (66%) were achieved above chance level (50% accuracy) by all models. In comparison, a pretrained version of GPT-2 large (Radford et al., 2019) provided by Hugging Face $^2$ , and trained on a much larger dataset $^3$ , achieves above-chance performance on 93 of the 96 probes. + +# 3.1 A systematic learning trajectory + +For clarity, we focus on the learning dynamics of the probes that ultimately achieve above-chance performance in our training. Figure 2 lists all probes learned above chance level, ordered by their average acquisition time. We perform the permutation analysis outlined in 2.3, to evaluate whether the order of acquisition is shared between models, and find that their order of acquisition is correlated with $R = 0.743$ and $p < 0.001$ . These results suggest that there is a systematic learning trajectory among models. + +# 3.2 Learning is parallel across linguistic tasks + +Are these linguistic skills learned sequentially or in parallel (Figure 1)? To address this question, we evaluate whether each linguistic probe starts to improve from the very first training steps but with different rates (i.e. a "parallel" learning scheme) or, on the contrary, whether some probes only start to improve once others have reached a particular performance (i.e. a "sequential" learning scheme). As the individual learning trajectories of each probe were noisy, we group the 64 linguistic probes into three categories: early, middle and late acquisition time (Figure 3). + +Overall, we observe parallel learning between the three groups: their performances all increase from the beginning of training: $95\%$ of tests in all three groups have a positive derivative within the first three hundred steps. However, they have different learning rates, as evaluated with a one-way ANOVA test on the learning rate (i.e. change + +![](images/d0dea45aa26fe24dd3b78ce9112237b6059833c376ac00595f37540c4834e8e0.jpg) +Figure 1: Hypotheses. Skill performance (y-axis) as a function of training (x-axis) illustrated on three tasks (colors) and two agents (model or children). Sequential learning implies that the learning of a complex skill (e.g. C, shown in red) does not start before simplest skills (e.g. A in green and B in blue) are fully learned. Parallel learning implies that all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. Sequential and parallel learning may cross an arbitrary performance threshold at the same training step. The frequency at which we can probe artificial networks during learning is much greater than what is realistically possible in children, giving us the timescale granularity to distinguish sequential and parallel learning trajectories. We also present a null hypothesis, that artificial networks with different random seeds may learn skills in a different order. + +![](images/f27c71387747471f90818c4ef27dfce6ff3da95f965a0e7c9e24ba7e83f2d63e.jpg) + +![](images/35d1246d79b6f047f0f4d3fb0e916b43e5ea80c505b8139ad91a8c9b5598a3b4.jpg) + +
StageChildrenLanguage Model
1Simple sentences in Subject-Verb (SV) orderSV agreement across simple sentences
2Wh-questionsSV agreement in questions
3Relative Clauses (RCs)SV agreement across object RCs
+ +Table 1: Linguistic phenomena in children selected for comparison with probes in the language models. + +of accuracy over time) obtained in each group and in each model $(p < 10^{-23})$ . + +# 3.3 Comparison with children + +Do these learning trajectories match the behavior of human children? For the three probes that correspond to the three stages identified in children's language acquisition (Table 1), we observe that the order in which these three probes are learned by the language models is the same as those of children (Figure 4). This effect is robust across random seeds: 46 of our 48 GPT-2 models follows this order, where chance level is $(1/3!)^{46} = 1.60e^{-36}$ . For this subset of language abilities, models and children thus seem to acquire syntactic skills in a similar order. + +# 3.4 Learning of theoretically-defined stages is parallel + +In part 3.1, we showed that GPT-2 learns its language abilities in parallel. Does this learning scheme also characterize the three syntactic skills investigated in children? To address this question, we now look at the learning curves of the skills defined in Table 1, as well as an additional probe: Nounpp, as it can be separated into congruent and incongruent cases which is important for the anal + +ysis in section 3.5. Overall, we observe that these probes are all learned in parallel in the model (Figure 5A). + +# 3.5 Models use both syntax and heuristics + +Both an understanding of syntactic rules and a superficial heuristics can lead to above-chance performances on these probes. Indeed, in many sentences (e.g. The cat [subject] of the lady [attractor] is [verb] hungry.), the number of the verb is congruent with the number of the adjacent attractor, even if the two are not related syntactically. To verify that the GPT-2 models effectively learn the syntactic rules, we thus separately examine congruent and incongruent cases. Incongruent cases require knowledge of the syntax of the sentence as the correct verb number is different from the number of the attractor. Empirically, we observe that the models do not learn the incongruent case in stage three above chance level, and just barely reach chance level on the incongruent case in stage two (Figure 5B), indicating that our models are using heuristics rather than syntactic rules to achieve high accuracy on the congruent cases (leading to above chance performance on the probe overall in Figure 5A). On the contrary, the pretrained GPT + +![](images/b010ed78004a7b83855311dec96637769c4214e3054ba0dba02e8742b0e7c893.jpg) +Figure 2: The performance of the models on each linguistic probe over time is smoothed using a moving average filter with window size of 6 checkpoints then the number of steps required to reach $90\%$ of final accuracy (acquisition time) is calculated. Probes are ordered by increasing average acquisition time. Results shown for 48 models. Only probes which have final accuracy greater than chance $(50\%)$ are shown. This demonstrates that probes tend to be learned in the same order by all agents with $\mathrm{R} = 0.743$ , $\mathrm{p} < 0.001$ , disproving the null hypothesis. + +2 large achieves above $75\%$ accuracy also on the incongruent cases of these probes. Thus for the models trained on the WikiText103, syntax is only learned for stages one and two, and heuristics seem to explain the above chance accuracy in stage three. A larger training dataset is required to learn syntax and not only heuristics for the most difficult + +examples. + +# 3.6 Impact of number biases in congruent and incongruent sentences + +In previous work, it was found that a variety of language models have a bias towards plural English verbs, and several studies (Jumelet et al., 2019; + +![](images/2a909119396e6065cd8fb6ecc488cab23f1cbcbd9896e111eccb313d3bf103b9.jpg) +Figure 3: Linguistic probes grouped into 3 groups to avoid plotting one line per probe. The probes in each group correspond to the colours in Figure 2. Probes which have final accuracy less than chance (50%) are placed in their own group, and tend to zero likely due to biases towards plural verbs in English (c.f. 3.6). Shading is standard error of the mean across probes in the group. This figure demonstrates that linguistic skills are learned in parallel not in sequence. + +Lakretz et al., 2021a,b) determined that LSTM-based models have a default number and gender prediction preference. To examine whether number bias has a significant effect on our analysis, we compare congruent sentences with only singular or only plural verbs and incongruent sentences with a plural or a singular verb. Accuracy on predicting plural verbs increases sharply from the start of the training and then drops. By contrast, the accuracy of singular cases first drops and then rises (Figure 5C), indicating that the models are biased towards plural verbs at the beginning of training. This bias is overcome for the stage one probe but for stage two and three it remains throughout training. This explains the initial downward trend in Group 3 and why the unlearned probes tend toward zero in Figure 3. + +# 4 Discussion + +The stages followed by children to acquire language has been the topic of intense research (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). While this learning trajectory is becoming clearer for sublexical representations (Dupoux, 2018), the acquisition of higher-level syntactic and semantic processing remains largely unclear. Here, we approach this long-lasting question through the lens of a deep language architecture, GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), + +to test whether this model follows a learning trajectory similar to children. + +# 4.1 Language acquisition: similarities and differences between humans and GPT-2 + +First, we show that GPT-2 models tend to learn a battery of linguistic phenomena (Warstadt et al., 2020; Lakretz et al., 2019; Huebner et al., 2021) in a consistent order. It is the reliability of the acquisition trajectory that allows a direct comparison with the learning trajectory of children (Friedmann et al., 2021). However, this consistency in GPT-2 models may result from two non-mutually exclusive factors, that remain to be disentangled: either the acquisition time of each linguistic phenomenon relates to its frequency in natural language (e.g. Simple subject-verb-complement are more frequent in natural language than nested syntactic structures; Karlsson 2007), and/or it relates to their intrinsic complexity (e.g. sentences with nested structure require more operations to be composed than simple sentences). Future work systematically controlling for these relative frequencies is thus necessary to distinguish these two possibilities, and would build upon work by Weber et al. (2021) who found that less frequent linguistic phenomena can be learned from fewer examples, though later in training. + +Second, we show that the order in which linguistic skills are acquired is similar between children and GPT-2 – at least on the syntactic phenomena that were evaluated in these two cohorts, and with the limitation of using number agreement as a proxy to whether the models acquire the corresponding syntactic structure. Similarly to children, GPT-2 models master subject-verb agreement in SV sentences before they master it in questions, or across nested center-embedded clauses (object-relative clauses). This result thus complements a series of studies comparing modern language models and humans. For example, a recent study showed that transformers trained on child-directed data can achieve comparable accuracy on linguistic probes to large pre-trained models (Huebner et al., 2021). Similarly, several studies have recently shown that the representations of GPT-2 become increasingly similar to those of the adult human brain during its training (Caucheteux and King, 2022). Finally, Lavechin et al. (2022) showed that models trained on audio in a self-supervised fashion learn phoneme and lexical abilities in a similar trajectory to children. + +![](images/b52612123aa11f556fd821244d49acef99ea1664d766992b21fa9b4f64e0feca.jpg) +Figure 4: Comparing language model performance on linguistic probes to children's performance. Example sentences observed in children were originally in Hebrew (Friedmann et al., 2021). Non-white indicates the phenomena is learned by the agent. The threshold for considering a probe learned by the model is performance above $55\%$ . + +![](images/781b658bfc78f7ed0cfd5ca39e7257e9e00e41fa315e3713a7e983d9647b09f4.jpg) + +![](images/da214a664f165da850401a424511f74092afc15d53a881a9a745c6cfcbe30486.jpg) + +![](images/8f69bb2d9586d1e9e2088e0e72e3684b35d63a5659bce91acb74b82ef3c4f313.jpg) +Figure 5: Subject verb agreement. Shading is standard error of the mean across seeds. S: Singular. P: Plural. A. Parallel learning is observed in the three stages defined by Friedmann et al. (2021), when results are averaged across congruent and incongruent cases. B. Subject verb agreement on incongruent cases which indicate whether the model understands syntax. The networks do not learn some syntax structures as the incongruent case of Short Nested Outer does not reach above chance level. C. Development trajectories of the bias towards plural number in English. + +![](images/d9f2fe0c53b9a8f161d38e2674a786a7947db551734aa4365370e19ba64859ed.jpg) +C + +![](images/9a08e1eaf97814dbb46825830657e249397e179eab8e5ca1883d404625c23eef.jpg) + +# 4.2 A work in progress + +It is important to stress that significant work remains to be done before drawing any definitive conclusions about the similarities between language acquisition in humans and algorithms. + +First, we only consider a single architecture (GPT-2, Radford et al. (2019)) with a unique textual corpus (WikiText103). Testing whether our + +results hold true independently of the model and training corpus remains an important milestone for future research. + +Second, linguistic abilities are not tested with the same protocols in children and in the models: the models are explicitly tested on next word prediction, with a two-alternative forced-choice metric, whereas children were implicitly evaluated on their ability to spontaneously use specific syntactic struc + +tures during natural speech. + +Third, there were only three linguistic features that were directly comparable between the model probes and the data in children, and all were syntactic. This leaves a significant margin of progress to modulate our conclusion, and investigate whether the lexicon, narrative structures, pragmatics and world-knowledge are acquired in the same order in humans and algorithms. + +Fourth, the order in which some linguistic skills were learned by GPT-2 does not trivially fit with linguistic theory. For example, the probe "Simple", which examines subject-verb agreement in a simple sentence, was one of the last probes to be learned by GPT-2 (it is part of group three in Figure 2). By contrast, "Wh Questions Subject Gap Long Distance" was among the first probes to be to be learned, even though it would be expected to be much harder than "Simple". This unexpected result may be due to the way we approximate "Acquisition Time", namely, the moment when the probes reaches $90\%$ of the final accuracy. Consequently, probes with very low final accuracy could end up with a shorter Acquisition Time, because noise may lead to crossing the $90\%$ threshold relatively quickly. + +Finally, we show that our models appear to use heuristics rather than a deep understanding of syntax for the most difficult linguistic probes (incongruent numbers between verbs and their attractors) and were biased towards plural English verbs. While our models learn only $66\%$ of tasks to above chance level, a larger GPT-2 pretrained on considerably more texts successfully perform on $97\%$ of the tasks, and has an accuracy above $75\%$ on the incongruent examples, meaning this bias and reliance on heuristics could potentially be solved by training on a larger dataset. + +In sum, additional work remains necessary to identify the exact elements of convergence and divergence between the acquisition of language in models and in children. + +# 4.3 Fueling the debate between nativism versus empiricism + +The present study fuels a long-lasting debate on the acquisition of language. While "empiricists" argue that language can be acquired with a statistical approach (Clark, 2002; Kolodny et al., 2015; Chater and Christiansen, 2018; McCauley and Christiansen, 2019), "nativists" maintain that this ability depends on a core and innate operation, spe + +cific to humans (Chomsky, 1959, 1971). + +The present study shows how modern language models may contribute to resolving this debate, by systematically studying which components of a model (e.g. architecture) or properties of the training data (e.g., frequency of sentence structures) contribute to shape the trajectory of language acquisition. Claims about an innate Universal Grammar could be understood as an inductive bias of a language model, implemented in its architecture and dynamics, which tightly constrains learning trajectories across models. If this bias is hierarchical (rather than linear) then this could lead to learning trajectories that follow the structure of the syntactic tree, consistently with the hypothesis of three linguistic stages presented by Friedmann et al. (2021) in humans and what we find in this study in language models. Indeed, neural language models have been previously shown to have a weak inductive bias towards hierarchical processing (McCoy et al., 2020; Kharitonov and Chaabouni, 2020), which can partially explain our results. + +This result echos the recent observation that syntactic trees spontaneously emerge in the middle layers of neural language models (Hewitt and Manning, 2019). Together, these elements thus suggest that modern neural networks provide fruitful models of language acquisition and could reconcile or settle the confronting theories of language acquisition (Warstadt and Bowman, 2022). + +# 4.4 Conclusion + +Overall, the similarities identified between children and GPT-2 suggest that there may be a small set of means by which to efficiently acquire language. This result is anything but trivial: humans and deep neural networks have extraordinarily different architectures, training, and language exposure. If generalized, this systematic learning trajectory would support the existence of an intrinsic hierarchy of linguistic structures that both machines and humans must climb, be that through inductive biases or properties of the training data, to master the faculty of language. And while these hypotheses remain open, the path to resolve them has never been clearer. + +# Acknowledgements + +We would like to thank Dieuwke Hupkes, Naama Friedmann, Marco Baroni and the attendees of the EviL meetings for their comments and suggestions. + +This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 945304, for L.E for her work at PSL. This work was funded in part by FrontCog grant ANR-17-EURE-0017 for the work of L.E. and J.R.K. for their work at PSL. + +# References + +Elika Bergelson and Daniel Swingley. 2012. At 6-9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:3253-3258. +Samuel R. Bowman and George Dahl. 2021. What will it take to fix benchmarking in natural language understanding? Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4843-4855. +Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-Rémi King. 2023. Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1-12. +Charlotte Caucheteux and Jean Rémi King. 2022. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications Biology, 5(1). +Tyler A. Chang and Benjamin K. Bergen. 2022. Word acquisition in neural language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1-16. +Nick Chater and Morten H Christiansen. 2018. Language acquisition as skill learning. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 21:205-208. +Noam Chomsky. 1959. Review of verbal behavior. 35(1):26-58. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America. +Noam Chomsky. 1971. *Problems of Knowledge and Freedom*. New York,: W.W. Norton. +Alexander Clark. 2002. Unsupervised language acquisition: Theory and practice. arXiv preprint cs/0212024. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova Google, and AI Language. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. + +Emmanuel Dupoux. 2018. Cognitive science in the era of artificial intelligence: A roadmap for reverse-engineering the infant language-learner. Cognition, 173:43-59. +Naama Friedmann, Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi. 2021. Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1). +Naama Friedmann and Julia Reznick. 2021. Stages rather than ages in the acquisition of movement structures: Data from sentence repetition and 27696 spontaneous clauses. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1). +Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +John Hewitt and Christopher D Manning. 2019. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4129-4138. +Philip Huebner. 2022. Unmasked. https://github.com/phueb/UnMasked. (Accessed 2023/05/24). +Philip A Huebner, Elior Sulem, Cynthia Fisher, and Dan Roth. 2021. BabyBERTa : Learning More Grammar With Small-Scale Child-Directed Language. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 624-646. +Shailee Jain and Alexander Huth. 2018. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fmri. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc. +Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3651-3657. +Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2019. Analysing neural language models: Contextual decomposition reveals default reasoning in number and gender assignment. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 1-11. +Fred Karlsson. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2):365-392. + +Eugene Kharitonov and Rahma Chaabouni. 2020. What they do when in doubt: a study of inductive biases in seq2seq learners. arXiv:2006.14953. +Oren Kolodny, Arnon Lotem, and Shimon Edelman. 2015. Learning a generative probabilistic grammar of experience: A process-level model of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 39(2):227-267. +Patricia K. Kuhl. 2004. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5:831-843. +Patricia K Kuhl, Erica Stevens, Akiko Hayashi, Toshisada Deguchi, Shigeru Kiritani, and Paul Iverson. 2006. Fast-track report infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9:13-21. +Patricia K. Kuhl, Karen A. Williams, Francisco Lacerda, Kenneth N. Stevens, and Bjorn Lindblom. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255:606-608. +Yair Lakretz, Théo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021a. Causal transformers perform below chance on recursive nested constructions, unlike humans. arXiv:2110.07240. +Yair Lakretz, Dieuwke Hupkes, Alessandra Vergallito, Marco Marelli, Marco Baroni, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021b. Mechanisms for handling nested dependencies in neural-network language models and humans. Cognition, 213:104699. Special Issue in Honour of Jacques Mehler, Cognition's founding editor. +Yair Lakretz, German Kruszewski, Theo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, Stanislas Dehaene, and Marco Baroni. 2019. The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language models. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 11-20. +Marvin Lavechin, Maureen De Seyssel, Hadrien Titeux, Hervé Bredin, Guillaume Wisniewski, Alejandrina Cristia, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Statistical learning bootstraps early language acquisition. PsyArXiv. +Tal Linzen, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:521-535. +Christopher D. Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117:30046-30054. +Reiko Mazuka, Yvonne Cao, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Anne Christophe. 2011. The development of a phonological illusion: A cross-linguistic study with japanese and french infants. Developmental Science, 14:693-699. + +Stewart M McCauley and Morten H Christiansen. 2019. Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. *Psychological review*, 126(1):1. +R Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140. +Jacques Mehler, Peter Jusczyk, Ghislaine Lambertz, Nilofar Halsted, Josiane Bertoncini, and Claudine Amiel-Tison. 1988. A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29:143-178. +Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv:1609.07843. +Thierry Nazzi, Peter W. Jusczyk, and Elizabeth K. Johnson. 2000. Language discrimination by english-learning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 43:1-19. +Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, John Hale, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2022. Neural language models are not born equal to fit brain data, but training helps. In ICML 2022-39th International Conference on Machine Learning, page 18. +Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2023. Information-restricted neural language models reveal different brain regions' sensitivity to semantics, syntax and context. arXiv:2302.14389. +Yada Pruksachatkun, Phil Yeres, Haokun Liu, Jason Phang, Phu Mon Htut, Alex Wang, Ian Tenney, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. jiant: A software toolkit for research on general-purpose text understanding models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. Semantic Scholar. (Accessed 2023-05-04). +Rushen Shi, Janet F Werker, and James L Morgan. 1999. Newborn infants' sensitivity to perceptual cues to lexical and grammatical words. Cognition, 72:B11-B21. +Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv 2206.04615. +Ruth Tincoff and Peter W. Jusczyk. 1999. Some beginnings of word comprehension in 6-month-olds. Psychological Science, 10:172-175. + +Mariya Toneva and Leila Wehbe. 2019. Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. +Alex Warstadt and Samuel R Bowman. 2022. What artificial neural networks can tell us about human language acquisition. arXiv:2208.07998. +Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mohananey, Wei Peng, Sheng Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. Erratum: "blimp: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for english". Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:867-868. +Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641. +Lucas Weber, Jaap Jumelet, Elia Bruni, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2021. Language modelling as a multi-task problem. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2049-2060, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Janet F. Werker. 2018. Perceptual beginnings to language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39:703-728. +Janet F. Werker and Richard C. Tees. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. *Infant Behavior and Development*, 7:49–63. +Tania S. Zamuner. 2006. Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9- to 16-month-old infants. Infancy, 10:77-95. + +# Appendix + +# A Tests in Children + +Detailed description of tests available in children, in the three linguistic stages defined by (Friedmann et al., 2021): + +- Stage 1: Subject-Verb Simple, Subject-Verb Unaccusative, Verb-Subject Unaccusative +- Stage 2: Root WH-Argument, WH-Adjunct Excluding Why, Preposed Adverb, Root y/n +- Stage 3: Why, Relative Clause, Topicalisation, Embedding + +The probes chosen for comparison (stated in Table 1), were the only probes that matched well with one of the test available in children. In addition Nounpp was examined in the models, as it fits into + +the linguistic stage 2, and, as it is part of the BIG-Bench probes, could be separated into congruent and incongruent sentences. + +# B Model Training + +To evaluate linguistic abilities of a high-performance language model, we first use the HuggingFace pretrained GPT-2 large which has 774M parameters and is trained on 40GB of data. This model has one-shot perplexity of 22 on WikiText103 (Radford et al., 2019). + +Then, to evaluate how linguistic abilities vary with language acquisition, we separately trained 48 models (each with a distinct random seed which set the model's initial parameters and the seed of the datalocator) using the 12-layer GPT-2 architecture (Radford et al., 2019) provided by HuggingFace on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a learning rate of $10^{-5}$ and a batch size of 16 distributed over 8 GPUs, making a total batch size of 64 and a context size of 128. Training was stopped when then validation loss plateaued, reaching final perplexity of 28 after 10 epochs. This is lower perplexity than the one-shot performance of the HuggingFace pretrained 12-layer GPT-2 which was 37.5, which is logical as our model was trained specifically on this dataset. + +In all cases we used the pretrained tokenizer which has vocabulary size of 50,257. All other parameters were the default training arguments for the transformer provided by HuggingFace. The HuggingFace architectures are publicly available under an MIT license, and WikiText103 is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. + +# C Linguistic Probe Benchmarks + +We use three different zero-shot benchmarks. The first benchmark, 'BLiMP' (The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English) (Warstadt et al., 2020) contains 67 different probes, each in the form of 1,000 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences designed to isolate a specific linguistic phenomenon. Adult human performance on BLiMP is $96.4\%$ (Warstadt et al., 2020). The second benchmark, 'Zorro' $^{5}$ , was developed with a vocabulary frequent in child-directed corpora. Zorro contains 13 probes, each consisting of 2,000 pairs of sentences. Finally, the third benchmark is the Subject-Verb Agreement Task of BIG + +Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022; Lakretz et al., 2019, 2021b; Linzen et al., 2016; Gulordava et al., 2018). We focus on the syntactic probes, namely: "Simple English" which contains 600 pairs, "NounPP" which contains 2,400 pairs, and "Short Nested Inner", "Short Nested Outer", "Long Nested Inner" and "Long Nested Outer" which each contain 4,096 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. + +Accuracy on a linguistic probe is evaluated with the Jiant (Pruksachatkun et al., 2020) and UnMasked method (Huebner, 2022). In practice, sentences are input to the model in batches of 300, with padding on the left to make all sentences the length of the longest sentence in the batch. The logit values of punctuation are discarded when estimating the probability of a sentence. + +Zorro, Jiant and UnMasked are publicly available under the MIT License, BLiMP under a CC BY License, and BIG-Bench under the Apache License 2.0. + +# A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Left blank. + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Left blank. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Left blank. + +□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +# B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +Left blank. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +Left blank. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +Left blank. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Left blank. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Left blank. + +# C Did you run computational experiments? + +Left blank. + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Left blank. + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. + +# D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/images.zip b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0e23f78f6c7d1c49b98563ab6a7130777df746d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f4d2b5676014cd0180d57c905f4832cdf960804e37eff1bb8dae048cac5cc2ae +size 566271 diff --git a/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/layout.json b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f2c79cca2b95a105a3ca490d79b36062258cee5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Language acquisition_ do children and language models follow similar learning stages_/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9259 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 73, + 516, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 73, + 516, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 73, + 516, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language acquisition: do children and language models follow similar learning stages?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 117, + 192, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 117, + 192, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 117, + 192, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linnea Evanson" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 133, + 176, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 133, + 176, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 133, + 176, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meta AI Paris;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 147, + 214, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 147, + 214, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 147, + 214, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 158, + 195, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 158, + 195, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 158, + 195, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ecole normale supérieure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 167, + 177, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 167, + 177, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 167, + 177, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PSL University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 180, + 217, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 180, + 217, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 180, + 217, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "linnea.evanson8@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 261, + 117, + 333, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 261, + 117, + 333, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 261, + 117, + 333, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yair Lakretz*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 137, + 352, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 137, + 352, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 137, + 352, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 148, + 326, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 148, + 326, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 148, + 326, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CEA,INSERM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 254, + 157, + 339, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 254, + 157, + 339, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 254, + 157, + 339, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Université Paris-Saclay" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 263, + 167, + 330, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 263, + 167, + 330, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 263, + 167, + 330, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NeuroSpin Center" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 236, + 180, + 357, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 236, + 180, + 357, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 236, + 180, + 357, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "yair.lakretz@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 403, + 117, + 492, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 403, + 117, + 492, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 403, + 117, + 492, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jean-Rémi King*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 418, + 133, + 473, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 418, + 133, + 473, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 418, + 133, + 473, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meta AI Paris;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 147, + 511, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 147, + 511, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 147, + 511, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Laboratoire des systèmes perceptifs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 399, + 158, + 493, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 399, + 158, + 493, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 399, + 158, + 493, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ecole normale supérieure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 167, + 474, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 167, + 474, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 167, + 474, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PSL University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 400, + 181, + 493, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 400, + 181, + 493, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 400, + 181, + 493, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "jeanremi@meta.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During language acquisition, children follow a typical sequence of learning stages, whereby they first learn to categorize phonemes before they develop their lexicon and eventually master increasingly complex syntactic structures. However, the computational principles that lead to this learning trajectory remain largely unknown. To investigate this, we here compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those of children. Specifically, we test whether, during its training, GPT-2 exhibits stages of language acquisition comparable to those observed in children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we train 48 GPT-2 models from scratch and evaluate their syntactic and semantic abilities at each training step, using 96 probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks. We then compare these evaluations with the behavior of 54 children during language production. Our analyses reveal three main findings. First, similarly to children, the language models tend to learn linguistic skills in a systematic order. Second, this learning scheme is parallel: the language tasks that are learned last improve from the very first training steps. Third, some – but not all – learning stages are shared between children and these language models. Overall, these results shed new light on the principles of language acquisition, and highlight important divergences in how humans and modern algorithms learn to process natural language." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 155, + 641 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 155, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 155, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 292, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 292, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 292, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language acquisition is marked by a series of successive stages (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). Within their first year of existence, humans infants successively acquire prosody contours (Mehler et al., 1988), phonetic categories (Werker and Tees, 1984; Kuhl et al., 1992; Mazuka et al., 2011) and frequent words (Tincoff and Jusczyk, 1999; Bergelson and Swingley, 2012)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "They then learn to produce basic syntactic structures (e.g. \"The boy sang\" or \"The boy fell\"), questions (e.g. \"What sound does a cow make?\") and nested syntactic structures (e.g. \"The boy that I saw sang\"), at approximately 12, 30, and 42 months, respectively (Friedmann et al., 2021). Even though some children may take slightly longer to learn than others, there is a set order in which children acquire various syntactic structures (Friedmann and Reznick, 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our understanding of the entire learning trajectory of children remains very coarse, however. This partly stems from the difficulty of measuring linguistic skills in young children. In babies, experimenters typically measure eye gaze and sucking rate while children process linguistic stimuli, as these reflexive behaviors are known to increase during surprising events. Such \"implicit\" approaches have successfully been used to assess whether nonspeaking infants detect linguistic violations (Zamuner, 2006), distinguish lexical from grammatical words (Shi et al., 1999) or discriminate their native language from a foreign language (Mehler et al., 1988; Kuhl et al., 2006; Nazzi et al., 2000). In older children, linguistic skills can also be more explicitly measured from spontaneous speech and sentence repetition. For example, a recent study by Friedmann et al. (2021), to which we compare our work in this paper, quantified the extent to which 18 month to 6 year-old children produce variably complex syntactic structures. For both of these approaches, however, the measures from children at such early ages can be noisy and fragmented." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interestingly, these issues do not apply to modern language models. Deep learning architectures trained to predict words from their proximal contexts have proved immensely effective at learning to process natural language (Radford et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019). Unlike humans, these algorithms can be easily probed during training, at any time point and rate, and with unlimited number of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 161, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 161, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 161, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal Contribution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12205" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 12205-12218" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "test stimuli, without interfering with their language acquisition (Jawahar et al., 2019; Manning et al., 2020; Bowman and Dahl, 2021). Furthermore, high-performing deep nets have been shown to implicitly (Lakretz et al., 2019; Gulordava et al., 2018) or explicitly learn to represent and use syntactic structures (Manning et al., 2020), as well as to use features such as concreteness and lexical class to learn language (Chang and Bergen, 2022). Finally, and importantly, these deep neural networks have recently been shown to represent lexical, syntactic and compositional representations similarly to the adult brain (Jain and Huth, 2018; Toneva and Wehbe, 2019; Caucheteux and King, 2022; Pasquiou et al., 2022, 2023; Caucheteux et al., 2023). Evidencing similar learning trajectories in children and language models could thus provide an invaluable framework to better understand the computational principles underlying language acquisition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, we compare the trajectory of language acquisition between human children and modern language models. We focus on three main questions. First, do these models learn linguistic skills in a systematic order? Second, is this trajectory sequential or parallel? Third, is this trajectory similar to that of children? These hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we train 48 GPT-2 architectures (Radford et al., 2019) from scratch, using a standard next-word prediction objective. We then evaluate, at each training step, their linguistic abilities with 96 semantic and syntactic probes curated from the BLiMP, Zorro and BIG-Bench benchmarks (Warstadt et al., 2020; Huebner et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). Finally, we compare a subset of these probes to the behavior of 54 children aged, between 18 months and 6 years (Friedmann et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 140, + 606 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 140, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 140, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 177, + 624 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 177, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 177, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Language models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 291, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We consider two main language models. First, we use a pretrained language model – GPT-2 – as provided by HuggingFace and pretrained on 40 GB of data (Radford et al., 2019). Second, we separately train 48 versions of a 12-layer GPT-2 model from scratch. We train each model on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a distinct random seed to set its initial parameters and data-loader. Each model is evaluated on all linguistic probes every" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "100 training steps. Further training details are provided in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 104, + 455, + 117 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 104, + 455, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 104, + 455, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Zero-shot linguistic probes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 123, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 123, + 526, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 123, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zero-shot linguistic probes are sentences or phrases crafted to evaluate whether a model has learned a particular linguistic skill, without training or finetuning the model on that particular skill. In practice, a zero-shot probe consists of comparing the estimated probability of a grammatical sentence with that of a matched ungrammatical sentence. This two-alternative forced-choice approach can be compared to \"acceptability judgements\", classically used in linguistics (Warstadt et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 526, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 526, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 526, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our models on 96 different linguistic probes, curated from three open source benchmarks, the details of which are presented in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we compare the probability of each sentence in a grammatical/ungrammatical pair by evaluating the sum of the logarithm of the loss output by the softmax layer:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 390, + 524, + 426 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 390, + 524, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 390, + 524, + 426 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {n _ {g}} \\log (f (X _ {g}) _ {i}) < \\sum_ {j = 0} ^ {n _ {u}} \\log (f (X _ {u}) _ {j}) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "e236d107788dabd2768b41a4d30dfcaba321f7d139244a7a42e23e0d9a559b67.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the softmax layer of the language model, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{g}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{u}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the number of tokens in the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 525, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 525, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 525, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The accuracy of a given probe is the percentage of pairs where the estimated probability of the grammatical sentence is higher than that of the ungrammatical sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 465, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 465, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 465, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Assessing learning trajectory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate whether the trajectory of language acquisition is shared across models, we rank the probes by their \"acquisition time\", i.e. the number of steps taken by a model to reach " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of its final accuracy on a particular probe, for each model independently. We then assess the correlation of ranks between all pairs of the 48 models and take the average of these correlations. To estimate the statistical significance of this average correlation we redo this calculation for all possible model pairs after shuffling the ranks of one of the models in each pair. We repeat this permutation 1,000 times, getting 1,000 values for this shuffled correlation. If in all cases this shuffled correlation is lower than" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 185, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 185, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 185, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1https://huggingface.co/gpt2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12206" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the true average correlation, then the order of acquisition time is shared across models with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 258, + 131 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 258, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 258, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.4 Parallel versus Sequential learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language acquisition may be characterized by a \"sequential\" or a \"parallel\" learning scheme (Figure 1). \"Sequential\" learning designates the case where a complex skill does not start to be learned before simpler skills are mastered. By contrast, \"Parallel\" learning designates the case where all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. The null hypothesis is that the order in which an agent learns linguistic skills varies across agents. To determine the learning scheme of language models, we consider whether the probes have a positive derivative in the first three checkpoints (parallel learning) or not (sequential learning), and whether they have statistically different learning rates (by performing a one-way ANOVA test) across the three groups." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 282, + 384 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 282, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 282, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.5 Assessing linguistic skill from children's behavior" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Friedmann et al. (2021) studied 54 Hebrew-speaking children between the ages of 18 - 71 months and investigated the emergence of 11 linguistic phenomena, which the authors propose to organize into three stages (details in Appendix A). For our analysis we select the following tests, one from each stage:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 497, + 289, + 572 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 497, + 289, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 497, + 289, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 497, + 289, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Stage 1: Simple sentences in subject-verb (SV) order" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 535, + 194, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 535, + 194, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 535, + 194, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Stage 2: Wh Questions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 560, + 204, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 560, + 204, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 560, + 204, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Stage 3: Relative Clauses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data collection consisted of spontaneous speech samples produced by each child at home. Each sample was then manually annotated to detect the presence of each of the linguistic phenomena. A linguistic phenomenon was considered learned if and only if it was present in the speech sample. Speech samples had a mean length of 151 utterances per sample and standard deviation of 37. The aggregated data was made available directly in the original paper (under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License), and here used for comparison with our language models. In Table 1 we show which probes in the models matched with these tests." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We aim to compare the learning trajectories of deep language models to those observed in 54 children aged between 18 months and 6 years. For this, we trained variants of GPT-2 models (Radford et al., 2019) from 48 different random seeds with the WikiText103 dataset (Merit et al., 2016) and evaluated each model on 96 linguistic probes every 100 steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "At the end of this training, 64 probes (66%) were achieved above chance level (50% accuracy) by all models. In comparison, a pretrained version of GPT-2 large (Radford et al., 2019) provided by Hugging Face" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and trained on a much larger dataset" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", achieves above-chance performance on 93 of the 96 probes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 481, + 311 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 481, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 481, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 A systematic learning trajectory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For clarity, we focus on the learning dynamics of the probes that ultimately achieve above-chance performance in our training. Figure 2 lists all probes learned above chance level, ordered by their average acquisition time. We perform the permutation analysis outlined in 2.3, to evaluate whether the order of acquisition is shared between models, and find that their order of acquisition is correlated with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R = 0.743" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These results suggest that there is a systematic learning trajectory among models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Learning is parallel across linguistic tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Are these linguistic skills learned sequentially or in parallel (Figure 1)? To address this question, we evaluate whether each linguistic probe starts to improve from the very first training steps but with different rates (i.e. a \"parallel\" learning scheme) or, on the contrary, whether some probes only start to improve once others have reached a particular performance (i.e. a \"sequential\" learning scheme). As the individual learning trajectories of each probe were noisy, we group the 64 linguistic probes into three categories: early, middle and late acquisition time (Figure 3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall, we observe parallel learning between the three groups: their performances all increase from the beginning of training: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of tests in all three groups have a positive derivative within the first three hundred steps. However, they have different learning rates, as evaluated with a one-way ANOVA test on the learning rate (i.e. change" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 495, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 495, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 495, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 495, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://huggingface.co/tftransformers/gpt2-large" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 496, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 496, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 496, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{3}{40}\\mathrm{{GB}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 496, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 496, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{181}\\mathrm{{MB}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 496, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of WikiText103" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12207" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 225, + 194 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 225, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 225, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 225, + 194 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d0dea45aa26fe24dd3b78ce9112237b6059833c376ac00595f37540c4834e8e0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 206, + 526, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 206, + 526, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 206, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Hypotheses. Skill performance (y-axis) as a function of training (x-axis) illustrated on three tasks (colors) and two agents (model or children). Sequential learning implies that the learning of a complex skill (e.g. C, shown in red) does not start before simplest skills (e.g. A in green and B in blue) are fully learned. Parallel learning implies that all skills are acquired simultaneously, but at different speeds. Sequential and parallel learning may cross an arbitrary performance threshold at the same training step. The frequency at which we can probe artificial networks during learning is much greater than what is realistically possible in children, giving us the timescale granularity to distinguish sequential and parallel learning trajectories. We also present a null hypothesis, that artificial networks with different random seeds may learn skills in a different order." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 70, + 375, + 194 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 228, + 70, + 375, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 228, + 70, + 375, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 228, + 70, + 375, + 194 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f27c71387747471f90818c4ef27dfce6ff3da95f965a0e7c9e24ba7e83f2d63e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 375, + 70, + 524, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 70, + 524, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 70, + 524, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 70, + 524, + 190 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "35d1246d79b6f047f0f4d3fb0e916b43e5ea80c505b8139ad91a8c9b5598a3b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 312, + 511, + 371 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 312, + 511, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 312, + 511, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 312, + 511, + 371 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StageChildrenLanguage Model
1Simple sentences in Subject-Verb (SV) orderSV agreement across simple sentences
2Wh-questionsSV agreement in questions
3Relative Clauses (RCs)SV agreement across object RCs
", + "image_path": "9da4eafe1260db2bc5382933dd3306e9f3a9477c453ba70fb06d01fc73f8eccf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 378, + 506, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 378, + 506, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 378, + 506, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Linguistic phenomena in children selected for comparison with probes in the language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of accuracy over time) obtained in each group and in each model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 10^{-23})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 219, + 459 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 219, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 219, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Comparison with children" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Do these learning trajectories match the behavior of human children? For the three probes that correspond to the three stages identified in children's language acquisition (Table 1), we observe that the order in which these three probes are learned by the language models is the same as those of children (Figure 4). This effect is robust across random seeds: 46 of our 48 GPT-2 models follows this order, where chance level is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(1/3!)^{46} = 1.60e^{-36}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For this subset of language abilities, models and children thus seem to acquire syntactic skills in a similar order." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 290, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Learning of theoretically-defined stages is parallel" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In part 3.1, we showed that GPT-2 learns its language abilities in parallel. Does this learning scheme also characterize the three syntactic skills investigated in children? To address this question, we now look at the learning curves of the skills defined in Table 1, as well as an additional probe: Nounpp, as it can be separated into congruent and incongruent cases which is important for the anal" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 526, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 526, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 526, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ysis in section 3.5. Overall, we observe that these probes are all learned in parallel in the model (Figure 5A)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 508, + 479 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 508, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 508, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Models use both syntax and heuristics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Both an understanding of syntactic rules and a superficial heuristics can lead to above-chance performances on these probes. Indeed, in many sentences (e.g. The cat [subject] of the lady [attractor] is [verb] hungry.), the number of the verb is congruent with the number of the adjacent attractor, even if the two are not related syntactically. To verify that the GPT-2 models effectively learn the syntactic rules, we thus separately examine congruent and incongruent cases. Incongruent cases require knowledge of the syntax of the sentence as the correct verb number is different from the number of the attractor. Empirically, we observe that the models do not learn the incongruent case in stage three above chance level, and just barely reach chance level on the incongruent case in stage two (Figure 5B), indicating that our models are using heuristics rather than syntactic rules to achieve high accuracy on the congruent cases (leading to above chance performance on the probe overall in Figure 5A). On the contrary, the pretrained GPT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12208" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 524, + 584 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 524, + 584 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 524, + 584 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 524, + 584 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b010ed78004a7b83855311dec96637769c4214e3054ba0dba02e8742b0e7c893.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The performance of the models on each linguistic probe over time is smoothed using a moving average filter with window size of 6 checkpoints then the number of steps required to reach " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of final accuracy (acquisition time) is calculated. Probes are ordered by increasing average acquisition time. Results shown for 48 models. Only probes which have final accuracy greater than chance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(50\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are shown. This demonstrates that probes tend to be learned in the same order by all agents with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{R} = 0.743" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{p} < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 595, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", disproving the null hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 large achieves above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "75\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " accuracy also on the incongruent cases of these probes. Thus for the models trained on the WikiText103, syntax is only learned for stages one and two, and heuristics seem to explain the above chance accuracy in stage three. A larger training dataset is required to learn syntax and not only heuristics for the most difficult" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 677, + 350, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 677, + 350, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 677, + 350, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 698, + 524, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 698, + 524, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 698, + 524, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.6 Impact of number biases in congruent and incongruent sentences" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In previous work, it was found that a variety of language models have a bias towards plural English verbs, and several studies (Jumelet et al., 2019;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12209" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 286, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 286, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 286, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 286, + 253 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2a909119396e6065cd8fb6ecc488cab23f1cbcbd9896e111eccb313d3bf103b9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 374 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Linguistic probes grouped into 3 groups to avoid plotting one line per probe. The probes in each group correspond to the colours in Figure 2. Probes which have final accuracy less than chance (50%) are placed in their own group, and tend to zero likely due to biases towards plural verbs in English (c.f. 3.6). Shading is standard error of the mean across probes in the group. This figure demonstrates that linguistic skills are learned in parallel not in sequence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lakretz et al., 2021a,b) determined that LSTM-based models have a default number and gender prediction preference. To examine whether number bias has a significant effect on our analysis, we compare congruent sentences with only singular or only plural verbs and incongruent sentences with a plural or a singular verb. Accuracy on predicting plural verbs increases sharply from the start of the training and then drops. By contrast, the accuracy of singular cases first drops and then rises (Figure 5C), indicating that the models are biased towards plural verbs at the beginning of training. This bias is overcome for the stage one probe but for stage two and three it remains throughout training. This explains the initial downward trend in Group 3 and why the unlearned probes tend toward zero in Figure 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 143, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 143, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 143, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The stages followed by children to acquire language has been the topic of intense research (Dupoux, 2018; Kuhl, 2004; Werker, 2018). While this learning trajectory is becoming clearer for sublexical representations (Dupoux, 2018), the acquisition of higher-level syntactic and semantic processing remains largely unclear. Here, we approach this long-lasting question through the lens of a deep language architecture, GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to test whether this model follows a learning trajectory similar to children." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 517, + 137 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 517, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 517, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Language acquisition: similarities and differences between humans and GPT-2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 147, + 526, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 147, + 526, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 147, + 526, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, we show that GPT-2 models tend to learn a battery of linguistic phenomena (Warstadt et al., 2020; Lakretz et al., 2019; Huebner et al., 2021) in a consistent order. It is the reliability of the acquisition trajectory that allows a direct comparison with the learning trajectory of children (Friedmann et al., 2021). However, this consistency in GPT-2 models may result from two non-mutually exclusive factors, that remain to be disentangled: either the acquisition time of each linguistic phenomenon relates to its frequency in natural language (e.g. Simple subject-verb-complement are more frequent in natural language than nested syntactic structures; Karlsson 2007), and/or it relates to their intrinsic complexity (e.g. sentences with nested structure require more operations to be composed than simple sentences). Future work systematically controlling for these relative frequencies is thus necessary to distinguish these two possibilities, and would build upon work by Weber et al. (2021) who found that less frequent linguistic phenomena can be learned from fewer examples, though later in training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, we show that the order in which linguistic skills are acquired is similar between children and GPT-2 – at least on the syntactic phenomena that were evaluated in these two cohorts, and with the limitation of using number agreement as a proxy to whether the models acquire the corresponding syntactic structure. Similarly to children, GPT-2 models master subject-verb agreement in SV sentences before they master it in questions, or across nested center-embedded clauses (object-relative clauses). This result thus complements a series of studies comparing modern language models and humans. For example, a recent study showed that transformers trained on child-directed data can achieve comparable accuracy on linguistic probes to large pre-trained models (Huebner et al., 2021). Similarly, several studies have recently shown that the representations of GPT-2 become increasingly similar to those of the adult human brain during its training (Caucheteux and King, 2022). Finally, Lavechin et al. (2022) showed that models trained on audio in a self-supervised fashion learn phoneme and lexical abilities in a similar trajectory to children." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12210" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 153 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 153 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 153 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b52612123aa11f556fd821244d49acef99ea1664d766992b21fa9b4f64e0feca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 161, + 526, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 161, + 526, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 161, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Comparing language model performance on linguistic probes to children's performance. Example sentences observed in children were originally in Hebrew (Friedmann et al., 2021). Non-white indicates the phenomena is learned by the agent. The threshold for considering a probe learned by the model is performance above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 161, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "55\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 161, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 223, + 289, + 386 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 223, + 289, + 386 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 223, + 289, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 223, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "781b658bfc78f7ed0cfd5ca39e7257e9e00e41fa315e3713a7e983d9647b09f4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 230, + 521, + 384 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 230, + 521, + 384 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 230, + 521, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 230, + 521, + 384 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "da214a664f165da850401a424511f74092afc15d53a881a9a745c6cfcbe30486.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 391, + 221, + 539 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 391, + 221, + 539 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 391, + 221, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 391, + 221, + 539 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8f69bb2d9586d1e9e2088e0e72e3684b35d63a5659bce91acb74b82ef3c4f313.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 526, + 630 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 526, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Subject verb agreement. Shading is standard error of the mean across seeds. S: Singular. P: Plural. A. Parallel learning is observed in the three stages defined by Friedmann et al. (2021), when results are averaged across congruent and incongruent cases. B. Subject verb agreement on incongruent cases which indicate whether the model understands syntax. The networks do not learn some syntax structures as the incongruent case of Short Nested Outer does not reach above chance level. C. Development trajectories of the bias towards plural number in English." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 224, + 404, + 366, + 540 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 224, + 404, + 366, + 540 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 224, + 404, + 366, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 224, + 404, + 366, + 540 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d9f2fe0c53b9a8f161d38e2674a786a7947db551734aa4365370e19ba64859ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 550, + 301, + 558 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 550, + 301, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 550, + 301, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 368, + 391, + 521, + 540 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 391, + 521, + 540 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 391, + 521, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 391, + 521, + 540 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9a08e1eaf97814dbb46825830657e249397e179eab8e5ca1883d404625c23eef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 185, + 665 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 185, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 185, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 A work in progress" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 290, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is important to stress that significant work remains to be done before drawing any definitive conclusions about the similarities between language acquisition in humans and algorithms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, we only consider a single architecture (GPT-2, Radford et al. (2019)) with a unique textual corpus (WikiText103). Testing whether our" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "results hold true independently of the model and training corpus remains an important milestone for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, linguistic abilities are not tested with the same protocols in children and in the models: the models are explicitly tested on next word prediction, with a two-alternative forced-choice metric, whereas children were implicitly evaluated on their ability to spontaneously use specific syntactic struc" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12211" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 191, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 191, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 191, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tures during natural speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 290, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 290, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 290, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Third, there were only three linguistic features that were directly comparable between the model probes and the data in children, and all were syntactic. This leaves a significant margin of progress to modulate our conclusion, and investigate whether the lexicon, narrative structures, pragmatics and world-knowledge are acquired in the same order in humans and algorithms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 291, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fourth, the order in which some linguistic skills were learned by GPT-2 does not trivially fit with linguistic theory. For example, the probe \"Simple\", which examines subject-verb agreement in a simple sentence, was one of the last probes to be learned by GPT-2 (it is part of group three in Figure 2). By contrast, \"Wh Questions Subject Gap Long Distance\" was among the first probes to be to be learned, even though it would be expected to be much harder than \"Simple\". This unexpected result may be due to the way we approximate \"Acquisition Time\", namely, the moment when the probes reaches " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the final accuracy. Consequently, probes with very low final accuracy could end up with a shorter Acquisition Time, because noise may lead to crossing the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " threshold relatively quickly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we show that our models appear to use heuristics rather than a deep understanding of syntax for the most difficult linguistic probes (incongruent numbers between verbs and their attractors) and were biased towards plural English verbs. While our models learn only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "66\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of tasks to above chance level, a larger GPT-2 pretrained on considerably more texts successfully perform on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "97\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the tasks, and has an accuracy above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "75\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the incongruent examples, meaning this bias and reliance on heuristics could potentially be solved by training on a larger dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In sum, additional work remains necessary to identify the exact elements of convergence and divergence between the acquisition of language in models and in children." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 267, + 673 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 267, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 267, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Fueling the debate between nativism versus empiricism" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The present study fuels a long-lasting debate on the acquisition of language. While \"empiricists\" argue that language can be acquired with a statistical approach (Clark, 2002; Kolodny et al., 2015; Chater and Christiansen, 2018; McCauley and Christiansen, 2019), \"nativists\" maintain that this ability depends on a core and innate operation, spe" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cific to humans (Chomsky, 1959, 1971)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The present study shows how modern language models may contribute to resolving this debate, by systematically studying which components of a model (e.g. architecture) or properties of the training data (e.g., frequency of sentence structures) contribute to shape the trajectory of language acquisition. Claims about an innate Universal Grammar could be understood as an inductive bias of a language model, implemented in its architecture and dynamics, which tightly constrains learning trajectories across models. If this bias is hierarchical (rather than linear) then this could lead to learning trajectories that follow the structure of the syntactic tree, consistently with the hypothesis of three linguistic stages presented by Friedmann et al. (2021) in humans and what we find in this study in language models. Indeed, neural language models have been previously shown to have a weak inductive bias towards hierarchical processing (McCoy et al., 2020; Kharitonov and Chaabouni, 2020), which can partially explain our results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This result echos the recent observation that syntactic trees spontaneously emerge in the middle layers of neural language models (Hewitt and Manning, 2019). Together, these elements thus suggest that modern neural networks provide fruitful models of language acquisition and could reconcile or settle the confronting theories of language acquisition (Warstadt and Bowman, 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 383, + 494 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 383, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 383, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 526, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall, the similarities identified between children and GPT-2 suggest that there may be a small set of means by which to efficiently acquire language. This result is anything but trivial: humans and deep neural networks have extraordinarily different architectures, training, and language exposure. If generalized, this systematic learning trajectory would support the existence of an intrinsic hierarchy of linguistic structures that both machines and humans must climb, be that through inductive biases or properties of the training data, to master the faculty of language. And while these hypotheses remain open, the path to resolve them has never been clearer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12212" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 129 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to thank Dieuwke Hupkes, Naama Friedmann, Marco Baroni and the attendees of the EviL meetings for their comments and suggestions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 292, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 292, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 292, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 945304, for L.E for her work at PSL. This work was funded in part by FrontCog grant ANR-17-EURE-0017 for the work of L.E. and J.R.K. for their work at PSL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 243, + 127, + 256 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 243, + 127, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 243, + 127, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 290, + 306 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 290, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 290, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elika Bergelson and Daniel Swingley. 2012. At 6-9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:3253-3258." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 289, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samuel R. Bowman and George Dahl. 2021. What will it take to fix benchmarking in natural language understanding? Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4843-4855." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 432 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-Rémi King. 2023. Evidence of a predictive coding hierarchy in the human brain listening to speech. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1-12." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 291, + 473 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 291, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 291, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux and Jean Rémi King. 2022. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications Biology, 5(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 479, + 290, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 479, + 290, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 479, + 290, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tyler A. Chang and Benjamin K. Bergen. 2022. Word acquisition in neural language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1-16." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nick Chater and Morten H Christiansen. 2018. Language acquisition as skill learning. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 21:205-208." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 291, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noam Chomsky. 1959. Review of verbal behavior. 35(1):26-58. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noam Chomsky. 1971. *Problems of Knowledge and Freedom*. New York,: W.W. Norton." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 291, + 676 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 291, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 291, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Clark. 2002. Unsupervised language acquisition: Theory and practice. arXiv preprint cs/0212024." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova Google, and AI Language. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emmanuel Dupoux. 2018. Cognitive science in the era of artificial intelligence: A roadmap for reverse-engineering the infant language-learner. Cognition, 173:43-59." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Naama Friedmann, Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi. 2021. Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 237 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Naama Friedmann and Julia Reznick. 2021. Stages rather than ages in the acquisition of movement structures: Data from sentence repetition and 27696 spontaneous clauses. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 526, + 345 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 526, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 526, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Hewitt and Christopher D Manning. 2019. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4129-4138." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philip Huebner. 2022. Unmasked. https://github.com/phueb/UnMasked. (Accessed 2023/05/24)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philip A Huebner, Elior Sulem, Cynthia Fisher, and Dan Roth. 2021. BabyBERTa : Learning More Grammar With Small-Scale Child-Directed Language. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 624-646." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 526, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shailee Jain and Alexander Huth. 2018. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fmri. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 652 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3651-3657." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 526, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2019. Analysing neural language models: Contextual decomposition reveals default reasoning in number and gender assignment. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 1-11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fred Karlsson. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2):365-392." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12213" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov and Rahma Chaabouni. 2020. What they do when in doubt: a study of inductive biases in seq2seq learners. arXiv:2006.14953." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 289, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 289, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 289, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oren Kolodny, Arnon Lotem, and Shimon Edelman. 2015. Learning a generative probabilistic grammar of experience: A process-level model of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 39(2):227-267." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 164, + 289, + 197 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 164, + 289, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 164, + 289, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patricia K. Kuhl. 2004. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5:831-843." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 289, + 270 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 289, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 289, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patricia K Kuhl, Erica Stevens, Akiko Hayashi, Toshisada Deguchi, Shigeru Kiritani, and Paul Iverson. 2006. Fast-track report infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9:13-21." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 279, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 279, + 289, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 279, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patricia K. Kuhl, Karen A. Williams, Francisco Lacerda, Kenneth N. Stevens, and Bjorn Lindblom. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255:606-608." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 289, + 374 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 289, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 289, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yair Lakretz, Théo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021a. Causal transformers perform below chance on recursive nested constructions, unlike humans. arXiv:2110.07240." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 381, + 289, + 448 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 381, + 289, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 381, + 289, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yair Lakretz, Dieuwke Hupkes, Alessandra Vergallito, Marco Marelli, Marco Baroni, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2021b. Mechanisms for handling nested dependencies in neural-network language models and humans. Cognition, 213:104699. Special Issue in Honour of Jacques Mehler, Cognition's founding editor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 455, + 289, + 511 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 455, + 289, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 455, + 289, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yair Lakretz, German Kruszewski, Theo Desbordes, Dieuwke Hupkes, Stanislas Dehaene, and Marco Baroni. 2019. The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language models. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 11-20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 289, + 573 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 289, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 289, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marvin Lavechin, Maureen De Seyssel, Hadrien Titeux, Hervé Bredin, Guillaume Wisniewski, Alejandrina Cristia, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Statistical learning bootstraps early language acquisition. PsyArXiv." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 289, + 635 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 289, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 289, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tal Linzen, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:521-535." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 289, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christopher D. Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117:30046-30054." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reiko Mazuka, Yvonne Cao, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Anne Christophe. 2011. The development of a phonological illusion: A cross-linguistic study with japanese and french infants. Developmental Science, 14:693-699." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stewart M McCauley and Morten H Christiansen. 2019. Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. *Psychological review*, 126(1):1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "R Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 525, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 525, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 525, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacques Mehler, Peter Jusczyk, Ghislaine Lambertz, Nilofar Halsted, Josiane Bertoncini, and Claudine Amiel-Tison. 1988. A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29:143-178." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 525, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv:1609.07843." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thierry Nazzi, Peter W. Jusczyk, and Elizabeth K. Johnson. 2000. Language discrimination by english-learning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 43:1-19." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, John Hale, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2022. Neural language models are not born equal to fit brain data, but training helps. In ICML 2022-39th International Conference on Machine Learning, page 18." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 398, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 398, + 525, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 398, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. 2023. Information-restricted neural language models reveal different brain regions' sensitivity to semantics, syntax and context. arXiv:2302.14389." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 462, + 525, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 462, + 525, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 462, + 525, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yada Pruksachatkun, Phil Yeres, Haokun Liu, Jason Phang, Phu Mon Htut, Alex Wang, Ian Tenney, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. jiant: A software toolkit for research on general-purpose text understanding models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 559, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 559, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 559, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. Semantic Scholar. (Accessed 2023-05-04)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rushen Shi, Janet F Werker, and James L Morgan. 1999. Newborn infants' sensitivity to perceptual cues to lexical and grammatical words. Cognition, 72:B11-B21." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv 2206.04615." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruth Tincoff and Peter W. Jusczyk. 1999. Some beginnings of word comprehension in 6-month-olds. Psychological Science, 10:172-175." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12214" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mariya Toneva and Leila Wehbe. 2019. Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Warstadt and Samuel R Bowman. 2022. What artificial neural networks can tell us about human language acquisition. arXiv:2208.07998." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 291, + 243 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 291, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 291, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mohananey, Wei Peng, Sheng Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. Erratum: \"blimp: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for english\". Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:867-868." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 253, + 290, + 298 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 253, + 290, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 253, + 290, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 290, + 373 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 290, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 290, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lucas Weber, Jaap Jumelet, Elia Bruni, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2021. Language modelling as a multi-task problem. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2049-2060, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 381, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 381, + 290, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 381, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Janet F. Werker. 2018. Perceptual beginnings to language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39:703-728." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 290, + 468 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 290, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 290, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Janet F. Werker and Richard C. Tees. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. *Infant Behavior and Development*, 7:49–63." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 290, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tania S. Zamuner. 2006. Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9- to 16-month-old infants. Infancy, 10:77-95." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 121, + 535 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 121, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 121, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 180, + 553 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 180, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 180, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Tests in Children" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 290, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 290, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 290, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Detailed description of tests available in children, in the three linguistic stages defined by (Friedmann et al., 2021):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 610, + 290, + 709 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 610, + 289, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 610, + 289, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 610, + 289, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Stage 1: Subject-Verb Simple, Subject-Verb Unaccusative, Verb-Subject Unaccusative" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 646, + 289, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 646, + 289, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 646, + 289, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Stage 2: Root WH-Argument, WH-Adjunct Excluding Why, Preposed Adverb, Root y/n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 682, + 290, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 682, + 290, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 682, + 290, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Stage 3: Why, Relative Clause, Topicalisation, Embedding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The probes chosen for comparison (stated in Table 1), were the only probes that matched well with one of the test available in children. In addition Nounpp was examined in the models, as it fits into" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the linguistic stage 2, and, as it is part of the BIG-Bench probes, could be separated into congruent and incongruent sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 117, + 407, + 131 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 117, + 407, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 117, + 407, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Model Training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 526, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate linguistic abilities of a high-performance language model, we first use the HuggingFace pretrained GPT-2 large which has 774M parameters and is trained on 40GB of data. This model has one-shot perplexity of 22 on WikiText103 (Radford et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, to evaluate how linguistic abilities vary with language acquisition, we separately trained 48 models (each with a distinct random seed which set the model's initial parameters and the seed of the datalocator) using the 12-layer GPT-2 architecture (Radford et al., 2019) provided by HuggingFace on WikiText103 (Merit et al., 2016) with a learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10^{-5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a batch size of 16 distributed over 8 GPUs, making a total batch size of 64 and a context size of 128. Training was stopped when then validation loss plateaued, reaching final perplexity of 28 after 10 epochs. This is lower perplexity than the one-shot performance of the HuggingFace pretrained 12-layer GPT-2 which was 37.5, which is logical as our model was trained specifically on this dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In all cases we used the pretrained tokenizer which has vocabulary size of 50,257. All other parameters were the default training arguments for the transformer provided by HuggingFace. The HuggingFace architectures are publicly available under an MIT license, and WikiText103 is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 479, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 479, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 479, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Linguistic Probe Benchmarks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 526, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use three different zero-shot benchmarks. The first benchmark, 'BLiMP' (The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English) (Warstadt et al., 2020) contains 67 different probes, each in the form of 1,000 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences designed to isolate a specific linguistic phenomenon. Adult human performance on BLiMP is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "96.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Warstadt et al., 2020). The second benchmark, 'Zorro' " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", was developed with a vocabulary frequent in child-directed corpora. Zorro contains 13 probes, each consisting of 2,000 pairs of sentences. Finally, the third benchmark is the Subject-Verb Agreement Task of BIG" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 421, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 421, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 421, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 https://huggingface.co/gpt2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 435, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 435, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 435, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 435, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/phueb/Zorro" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12215" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022; Lakretz et al., 2019, 2021b; Linzen et al., 2016; Gulordava et al., 2018). We focus on the syntactic probes, namely: \"Simple English\" which contains 600 pairs, \"NounPP\" which contains 2,400 pairs, and \"Short Nested Inner\", \"Short Nested Outer\", \"Long Nested Inner\" and \"Long Nested Outer\" which each contain 4,096 pairs of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Accuracy on a linguistic probe is evaluated with the Jiant (Pruksachatkun et al., 2020) and UnMasked method (Huebner, 2022). In practice, sentences are input to the model in batches of 300, with padding on the left to make all sentences the length of the longest sentence in the batch. The logit values of punctuation are discarded when estimating the probability of a sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zorro, Jiant and UnMasked are publicly available under the MIT License, BLiMP under a CC BY License, and BIG-Bench under the Apache License 2.0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12216" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 292, + 266 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 292, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 292, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 138, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 138, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 138, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 138, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 138, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 138, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 138, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 138, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 138, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 138, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 138, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 138, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 138, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 138, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 138, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 138, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 138, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 138, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 295, + 657 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 295, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 295, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 128, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 128, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 128, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 684, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 684, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 684, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 138, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 138, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 138, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12217" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 524, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 524, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 524, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 524, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 524, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 524, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 524, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12218" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_content_list.json b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4436d222cec2e60d1e5f00939521d83dadee333 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2067 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 121, + 89, + 875, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Suet-Ying Lam†* Qingcheng Zeng‡* Kexun Zhang◇* Chenyu You* Rob Voigt‡", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 123, + 880, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "† Department of Linguistics, UMass Amherst", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 156, + 685, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\ddagger$ Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 174, + 719, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\diamond$ Department of Computer Science, UCSB", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 192, + 677, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\clubsuit$ Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University", + "bbox": [ + 270, + 208, + 729, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While a large body of literature suggests that large language models (LLMs) acquire rich linguistic representations, little is known about whether they adapt to linguistic biases in a human-like way. The present study probes this question by asking whether LLMs display human-like referential biases using stimuli and procedures from real psycholinguistic experiments. Recent psycholinguistic studies suggest that humans adapt their referential biases with recent exposure to referential patterns; closely replicating three relevant psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in an in-context learning (ICL) framework, we found that InstructGPT adapts its pronominal interpretations in response to the frequency of referential patterns in the local discourse, though in a limited fashion: adaptation was only observed relative to syntactic but not semantic biases. By contrast, FLAN-UL2 fails to generate meaningful patterns. Our results provide further evidence that contemporary LLMs discourse representations are sensitive to syntactic patterns in the local context but less so to semantic patterns. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/zkx06111/1lm_priming.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 680, + 258, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While neural network models, and particularly pretrained large language models have shown excellent performance at particular language processing tasks, many questions remain about the extent to which models optimized for such performance encode, as a side effect, human-like linguistic knowledge and cognitive biases. We know that they do to some extent; existing work has shown, for example, that neural models encode aspects of human-like long-distance number agreement (Gulordava et al., 2018), incremental syntactic state (Futrell et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 707, + 490, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2019), and syntactic generalization more broadly (Hu et al., 2020). In this paper, we examine whether FLAN-UL2 (Tay et al., 2023) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), two representative LLMs, display adaptation in pronoun interpretation when exposed to consistent referential patterns in the local discourse context.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 884, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared with syntactic or lexical knowledge, representing referential knowledge is possibly more complex; we know from psycholinguistic studies that human referential interpretation integrates multiple levels of linguistic structure. Humans do not interpret ambiguous pronouns at random but are guided by both syntactic and semantic information. It is well-established that absent other cues humans prefer a syntactic subject in choosing the antecedent of the ambiguous pronoun, i.e., subject bias (Ariel, 1990; Brennan, 1995). In example (1), she is more likely to be interpreted as the subject Ada than the non-subject Eva $\\mathbb{I}$ , even though both referents are possible antecedents for the pronoun.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 884, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(1) $\\mathrm{Ada}_1$ talked with $\\mathrm{Eva}_2$ . She...", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 620, + 774, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "People are also sensitive to the semantic structure of the sentence when choosing an antecedent for an ambiguous pronoun, in addition to syntactic information. In a transfer event that depicts a transfer-of-possession from one entity (the source) to another (the goal), they prefer the goal referent (Ada in (2), Eva in (3)) over the source referent (Eva in (2), Ada in (3)) to be the antecedent (Arnold, 2001, 1998), i.e., goal bias:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 649, + 884, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(2) Goal-source (gs) verb:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 806, + 715, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ada1 received a letter from Eva2. She1...", + "bbox": [ + 546, + 822, + 848, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(3) Source-goal (sg) verb:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 851, + 714, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ada1 sent a letter to Eva2. She2...", + "bbox": [ + 546, + 868, + 796, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Indices of pronouns in examples indicate the preferred referent.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9493", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 9493-9506", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 768, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 959, + 700, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In sum, people exhibit sensitivity to both syntax (subject bias) and semantics (goal bias) during pronoun interpretation. Importantly, these levels of linguistic structure are frequently entwined since both can influence referential interpretation. At times these influences may push in different directions: for instance, Ada in [3] is both the syntactic subject and the semantic source.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Building on a long tradition investigating preferences in pronoun interpretation, recent psycholinguistic studies have probed into the deeper question of the origin of these biases. One hypothesis is that referential biases come from linguistic experience: when a bias occurs very frequently, people will tend to adapt this more frequent referential pattern, both in the immediate exposure as well as more large-scale past experience (Arnold, 1998, 2001). Recent evidence has provided support to this idea by demonstrating that recent exposure to certain referential patterns did change people's referential biases. In a series of psycholinguistic studies, Johnson and Arnold (2022) show that after reading numerous stories that consistently show a particular referential bias, e.g., always referring to the non-subject or source referent, people did have a stronger preference for these primed referents.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 217, + 490, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given this line of psycholinguistic research, the current study investigates the extent to which LLMs adapt and vary referential biases in pronoun interpretation through exposure to referential patterns in the local context. To do so we replicated actual psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in LLMs using an ICL framework and asked whether the responses of LLMs display adaptation from exposure to referential patterns like human experimental participants. Comparing syntactically-motivated to semantically-motivated exposure conditions will allow us to first examine whether LLMs display human-like subject bias and goal bias and further understand the extent to which LLMs make use of local frequency changes in discourse representations in these categories.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 512, + 489, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-context learning refers to LLMs' ability to learn from demonstrations written in natural language prompts. Compared to previous work that has largely examined the encoding of such discourse knowledge using zero-shot inference (Upadhye et al., 2020), ICL is particularly suitable for experimental simulation since it replicates the naturalistic context in which later responses draw upon exposure to previous examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Foreshadowing our results, we find that InstructGPT can adapt and thus vary its syntactic bias from exposure to referential patterns in the local context, but the same is not true for semantic bias. Given that InstructGPT still exhibits a goal bias in spite of local discourse priming, we argue this suggests LLMs only encode partial semantic knowledge in referential processing. To sum up, our contributions can be summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1) We extended a discourse understanding evaluation to state-of-the-art LLMs from a new perspective, asking whether LLM's referential bias can be modified by exposure to particular referential patterns, like how humans adapt referential bias from experience.", + "2) To the best of our knowledge, we are the first study that replicates actual psycholinguistic experiments using the ICL framework and compares LLMs' behaviors with real human participants.", + "3) We present results in this context showing further evidence that InstructGPT can acquire abstract syntactic knowledge in referential interpretation to some extent, but not semantic knowledge." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 237, + 885, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 523, + 665, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A growing body of literature has suggested that LLMs encode rich representations of linguistic structure at various levels, including aspects of syntax, semantics, and reference encoded throughout their representations (Tenney et al., 2019). One of the most well-documented lines of this work demonstrates that these models can acquire diverse elements of syntactic knowledge (Gulordava et al., 2018; Futrell et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 884, + 692 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This capacity for encoding linguistic understanding extends to priming effects with psycholinguistic analogies to humans. At the syntactic level, Sinclair et al. (2022) explored structural priming in various autoregressive LLMs and found priming effects despite a clear dependence on semantic information. At the semantic level, using English lexical stimuli in BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Misra et al. (2020) found that BERT does display evidence of sensitivity to semantic priming, though this is localized to more unconstrained contexts and only certain semantic relations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In analyses of LLMs' linguistic understanding modeled on psycholinguistic experiments, however,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9494", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the question of discourse knowledge remains relatively under-explored. Recent existing work has presented partially conflicting accounts in this area, in particular with regard to how LLMs may or may not exhibit human-like biases in pronoun interpretation. For example, Davis and van Schijndel (2020) compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs behaviors and internal representations in dealing with implicit causality verbs, finding that surprisingly (contrary to humans) implicit causality only influences Transformer LMs' behavior for reference, but influences neither model for syntactic attachment. Sorodoc et al. (2020) also compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs in coreference resolution corpora, finding that although LMs are much better at grammar, they also captured referential aspects to some extent.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 489, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This existing work replicates sets of individual stimuli from psycholinguistic experiments in isolation; by contrast, our work takes a more behaviorally-oriented approach by replicating the stimuli, procedure, and even experimental design of a full set of human psycholinguistic studies. We do this to ask a further question: beyond exhibiting baseline human-like referential biases in pronoun interpretation, do LLMs display adaptation to the frequency of referential patterns in the local context like humans? This question is important because adapting to a referential bias over the course of an experiment requires a sustained representation of the frequency of the pattern, which involves a higher-level understanding of the discourse structure. Humans have shown abilities of this kind of adaptation at multiple linguistic levels. For instance, exposure to syntactic structures consecutively affects humans' choice of structures in both the short term and long term via priming effects (e.g., Branigan et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2000). Exposure to phonological patterns can also guide humans' segmentation patterns (e.g., Saffran et al. 1996a,b). At the semantic and pragmatic levels, humans can also adapt as listeners to speakers' variable choices of uncertainty expressions (Schuster and Degen, 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 359, + 489, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 810, + 223, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we aim to replicate three experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022), transferring their designs, procedures, and stimuli as faithfully as possible to the LLM context using in-context learning.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Source Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 85, + 712, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first briefly summarize the experimental setup employed by Johnson and Arnold (2022). In each experimental setting, participants heard a series of two-sentence stories in which the first sentence contained two characters with gender-marked first names (Matt or Will for men, Liz or Ana for women). For each story, participants answered a content question to check comprehension, and then a reference question to check pronominal interpretation. In order to lower the ceiling and keep participants from falling into a pattern of simply answering \"yes,\" reference questions were equally split between default and non-default phrasings (e.g. between the subject/non-subject interpretations in Experiment 1a and 2a and between the source/goal interpretations in Experiment 2b). Figure 1 illustrates sample stimuli and the procedure of the three experiments conducted.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 108, + 882, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In each experiment participants were first shown a series of stories with exposure reference questions to establish a referential pattern; in these, the characters had different genders so pronoun interpretation was unambiguous. After the exposure phase (20 stories in Experiment 1, 12 stories in Experiment 2), further stories with unambiguous exposure questions were intermixed with 12 stories accompanied by critical reference questions; in these stories, the characters had the same gender, so pronoun interpretation was ambiguous and required reliance on discourse cues.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 399, + 882, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Across experiments, there were two key conditions that were manipulated for exposures. Under a subject exposure condition, the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are subjects of the preceding clauses; in the corresponding non-subject exposure condition, they are the objects of the preceding clauses. Similarly, under a goal exposure condition the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are goal referents while in a source exposure condition they are source referents.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 595, + 882, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Aiming to transfer these experiments as faithfully as possible to the LLM context, we used this experimental paradigm to evaluate the LLM by providing the model with the full text of each story prompt and content/reference question, then generated tokens in response which we interpreted as answers.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 772, + 882, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For clarity, we use the same experiment numbers and identifiers as in Johnson and Arnold (2022).", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9495", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/13ba743cefbd27c4c0e3f7227491bf50163a4ae77168074819d8901207107d2e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Illustrated Experimental Procedure. Closely following the setup with human participants in Johnson and Arnold (2022), LLMs were primed via exposure to story/question pairs with unambiguous referents, and tested for their responses on ambiguous target pairs." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 89, + 877, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that we did not replicate experiments 1b and 1c, which investigated whether people are still sensitive to referential patterns using different types of referential expressions (e.g., third-person names and first- and second-person pronouns). While these experiments provided insights into the linguistic structure at which people generalize referential biases, they were less relevant to the objective of this study and thus were not included.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 487, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiment 1a In this experiment, all story prompts contain \"joint-action\" verbs using \"with\" in the form \"X did something with Y.\" Since these verbs lack a clear semantic bias (e.g., Arnold et al. 2018), this context allows us to evaluate LLMs' sensitivity to syntax-based biases in discourse by asking whether exposure to only subject-bias or object-bias examples will influence following answers on the ambiguous critical items. If LLMs are sensitive to syntax-based referential patterns, we expect more subject responses under the subject exposure condition and more non-subject responses under the non-subject exposure condition.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 489, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiment 2a Experiment 2a forms a bridge between adaptation to syntactic and semantic constraints. Are LLMs able to track patterns in both categories, for instance learning an exposure bias in one category while ignoring variation in the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "other? In this experiment, all story prompts contain source/goal verbs like \"give\" and \"receive,\" but these are distributed equally throughout exposures. The manipulation remains the same as Experiment 1a, in which LLMs are exposed to consistent and unambiguous subject interpretations in the subject exposure condition and non-subject interpretations in the non-subject exposure condition.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 884, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiment 2b This experiment focuses solely on source/goal biases, in which all story prompts contain source/goal words, but the unambiguous exposure items are manipulated to contain only source references in the source exposure condition and only goal references in the goal exposure condition.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 607, + 884, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 In-context Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 714, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose that since these experiments rely on short-term learning effects of exposure in an experimental context, they can only be effectively simulated with LLMs by using in-context learning recursively. Specifically, for each question, the model is provided access to all previous items in answering a new question, including its own previous responses. This is intended to mirror the process of human experimental participants making judgments in the light of recent exposure to input and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9496", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7eac8738a3744d17f8a5c6e9927d8cc4f4b3c45a032fa5cbeb0d11ac19659747.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The ICL Simulation Framework. Black text is provided to the models as prompts, red text is generated by the model. With the last step's output appended to previous prompts, we ask LLMs the next question." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 84, + 875, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "their own past responses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 430, + 302, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We manually checked the correctness of LLM responses to content questions intended to check comprehension, and as in the human experimentation context removed answers for which the LLMs provided incorrect answers. The answers to critical target questions were recorded for further statistical analysis. Our ICL procedure is shown in Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 485, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Models and Experimental Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 573, + 430, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We used text-davinci-003 from the OpenAI API and open-sourced FLAN-UL2 as the LLMs of interest. Though these models are of course not exhaustive of the current landscape of LLMs, they provide some diversity since they differ in both structure (decoder-only vs. encoder-decoder) and parameter count (175B vs. 20B). To introduce more randomness into the experiment and allow enough sample sizes for statistical comparisons across conditions, we made slight modifications to the temperature hyperparameter on each run. Specifically, we assigned each run a random and unique temperature value between 0.2 to 1.0.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 487, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also attempted to simulate 'participants' using a natural language prompt to approach different speaker identities following a similar methodology to Aher et al. (2022). We developed prompts with slots for titles, names, and country of origin to establish different character backgrounds simulating native English speakers from the United", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "States, Britain, and Australia, following the participants' demographics in Johnson and Arnold (2022). However, these prompts did not induce greater diversity in responses than temperature modification, so only results using temperature modification are presented below. We present a further analysis for both methodologies in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 430, + 884, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the end, we simulated 24 'participants' each in Experiment 1a and Experiment 2a, and 60 'participants' in Experiment 2b. We included more in Experiment 2b because this experiment has a lower response variability and thus needs more data points for the statistical analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 543, + 882, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Measures", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 653, + 633, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following the analytic approach of Johnson and Arnold (2022), we used a regression-based approach to analyze whether the responses of LM are consistent with the subject or gogoalal bias of the context for each experiment. We can then compare our findings with theirs by asking whether the effect of the main predictors is the same. In all experiments, predictors included exposure type (unambiguous exposures to subject/non-subject or goal/source), reference question type (whether the reference question is asked about the subject/non-subject or goal/source), and the interaction effect between them. Experiment 2 included verb type, as well as its two-way and three-way interaction effects with the other two predictors as addi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9497", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b713dc53c9188dfb9abdb356f8e484704ba80437250132cd8b2c76b4f04ec6af.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 1a, showing the percentage of subject responses for each type of reference question (Subj Q: subject reference question; Obj Q: object reference question), grouped by exposure type (subject exposure: light blue; object exposure: dark blue)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 85, + 495, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1af2893557bc50ad7b7367e24ba0d91c24fde990f14be4dfa9721e0516a3eb0d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 497, + 85, + 880, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tional predictors. Given our small dataset, the results were analyzed using Bayesian mixed-effects Bernoulli logistic regression models in the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017) instead of a frequentist model. We report a Bayesian equivalent p-value (p_MAP) computed with the R package bayestestR (Makowski et al., 2019) to offer a straightforward interpretation of the results. Details of models are provided in Appendix 1.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 432, + 487, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 593, + 213, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 FLAN-UL2", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 252, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We found that FLAN-UL2 was not capable of generating meaningful output for analysis under this design. First, FLAN-UL2 showed a much higher false rate in answering content questions versus InstructGPT: while InstructGPT replied $100\\%$ correctly to these questions, FLAN-UL2 replied to only $57\\%$ correctly. Second, for the ambiguous target items, FLAN-UL2 answered 'yes' $100\\%$ of the time, indicating an extremely strong bias towards simply answering 'yes' and producing no meaningful variation. By contrast, InstructGPT answered 'yes' to target questions $68\\%$ of the time, suggesting some amount of 'yes' bias but to a much weaker degree. From these findings we concluded that FLAN-UL2 did not produce sufficiently clean outputs for analysis; therefore, in the following sections, we will focus on results from InstructGPT.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experiment 1a", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 672, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiment 1a asks whether LLMs are sensitive to the frequency of referential patterns when subject referents are preferred. Figure 3 compares the subject responses of our results with Johnson and Arnold (2022)'s results. In both LLM and human data, we saw fewer subject responses in object exposure than in subject exposure. This is confirmed by the main effect of exposure type $(p\\_MAP < .001)$ revealed in the statistical analyses. There was also a main effect of response question type $(p\\_MAP = .009)$ . As seen from the figure, there were more subject responses in the subject than object reference questions in both human and LLM data. This is because InstructGPT did answer 'yes' more frequently in general, which led to more subject interpretations when the question asked about the subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a subject interpretation), and fewer subject interpretations when the question was asked about the non-subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a non-subject interpretation).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 463, + 884, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, we did not find any interaction effect between exposure type and reference question type. While Johnson and Arnold (2022) found that exposure type has a significant effect for subject-referent questions but only a marginal effect for the nonsubject-referent questions, the exposure effect was significant for both question types in our", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9498", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/085f18e929dd4217fa850e839c7f55771276ed37d3200866b45e5b0bc40d304c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2a. The proportion of subject responses is plotted against question type faceting by verb type, comparing goal-subject verbs (gs) like \"receive,\" where the subject is the goal referent) to subject-goal verbs (sg) like \"send,\" where the subject is the source referent." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 104, + 495, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2a343e7c521da318b156bebc78be20759d8c7cde2c27856af3ef2c79d08ed9e0.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 105, + 877, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "results. InstructGPT is sensitive to exposure type even for nonsubject-referent questions, as reflected in Figure 3: there were no subject responses when non-subject reference questions were asked under the non-subject exposure condition. This suggests that LLM may even be more sensitive to the exposure effect than humans. Overall, Experiment 1 shows that LLM can indeed learn from recent exposure to syntactically-oriented referential patterns, in a relatively more non-subject-biased way.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 445, + 489, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Experiment 2a", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 275, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We ask in Experiment 2a if the sensitivity to subject reference patterns observed in Experiment 1a persists independent of semantic variability in the local context. Figure 4 illustrates the responses of LLM and human participants by exposure, reference question, and verb type. The behavior of InstructGPT is in line with what Johnson and Arnold (2022) found in human participants for Experiment 2a: as in Experiment 1, statistical analyses revealed a significant main effect of referent question type $(p\\_ MAP = .034)$ , despite a marginally significant effect of exposure type $(p\\_ MAP = .085)$ . InstructGPT did understand the pronoun as subject referents more after subject exposure and said 'yes' more often such that there were more subject interpretations when the critical question was asked about the subject. InstructGPT also showed a goal", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "bias: there was a main effect of verb type ( $p\\_MAP = .001$ ), such that it referred to the subject more with gs verbs (where the subject is the goal referent) than sg verbs (where the subject is the source referent). We observed no interaction effect.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 884, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In spite of these similarities, we still observe differences between LLM and human participants. Notice in Figure 4 that there is a larger difference between gs and sg verbs in InstructGPT than in human participants while keeping other conditions constant, suggesting that LLMs may have a larger goal bias than humans.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 882, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Experiment 2b", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 653, + 672, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiment 2b examines whether InstructGPT is still sensitive to exposure to referential patterns that exhibit consistent preferences for a source or goal referent. Figure 5 compares the results from InstructGPT and human participants. Whereas Johnson and Arnold (2022) reported significant main effects from exposure type, reference question type, and verb type, as well as a marginal interaction effect between verb type and exposure, we did not find any effect from these predictors, but only an interaction effect between verb type and question type $(p\\_ MAP < .001)$ . We further examined the effect of question type and exposure type for each verb type, but no significant effect was found for either predictor. These results suggest that exposure", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 677, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "exposure subject object", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 87, + 581, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9499", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7b07beb2cfb69b66120318acf4ae405d8c038ba1de7b9b4c1419c4cb6a66fb68.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Goal responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2b." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 85, + 499, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/06201297b118d78ad080523bf1b86e5e6b261e1f6f037b5c0ba200c47b7f648f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 85, + 878, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "did not necessarily change InstructGPT's behaviors: for goal questions, both the goal and source exposure conditions led to $100\\%$ goal responses. Reference question type also did not affect InstructGPT's responses, because it almost always interprets the pronoun as the goal referent under subject exposure. The lack of any significant effects, and indeed our observed universal goal interpretations to goal-focused reference questions, suggest that InstructGPT displays an extreme goal bias in pronoun interpretation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 403, + 489, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 240, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The present study examined whether and to what extent LLMs display adaptation for pronominal interpretation after exposure to referential patterns by replicating three psycholinguistic experiments. Exposed to the same stimuli and study design, and analyzed with the same statistical procedures as the source experiments, we asked whether LLMs show human-like behaviors and compared the performance of LLMs-simulated participants with human participants.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We firstly found a difference between the capacity of contemporary models to replicate human psycholinguistic experimental designs in an ICL framework. While InstructGPT was able to correctly answer all the presented comprehension-check content questions, FLAN-UL2 was not. Both models displayed at least some bias towards answering 'yes' in ambiguous cases, but in the case of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "FLAN-UL2 this bias resulted in $100\\%$ 'yes' answers, rendering meaningful variation impossible to ascertain. This could be a result of structural differences between the models (decoder-only in the case of InstructGPT, encoder-decoder in the case of FLAN-UL2), or perhaps more likely a question of simple model size (175B for InstructGPT vs. 20B for FLAN-UL2).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 403, + 884, + 531 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiments 1a and 2a examined whether LLMs adapt their syntactic bias from recent exposure to referential patterns like humans, without and with the presence of possibly confounding semantic goal bias. We found that LLM's referential biases are indeed sensitive to such exposure in both experiments. In addition, LLM did exhibit a goal bias in Experiment 2a, in line with previous studies which argue for LLM's ability to exhibit human-like semantic bias in pronoun interpretation (e.g., Davis and van Schijndel 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 884, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiment 2b examined whether LLM can adapt and vary their semantic bias from exposures. In this context, in contrast with the previous two experiments, exposure type did not affect LLM behavior at all. This raises the question of why LLM would be sensitive to exposure to only referential patterns that exhibit consistent syntactic bias but not semantic bias. An immediate and intuitive answer would be that LLM is unable to fully represent semantic knowledge in referential processing. However, given that LLM did display a human-like goal bias in pronoun interpretation independent of exposure, this explanation seems unlikely.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9500", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We suggest that our work provides evidence that LLM only partially represents the semantic knowledge involved in referential processing for two reasons.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, adapting referential biases on the basis of exposure in the local context may require representations of higher-level knowledge than merely exhibiting a bias towards certain referents. While the latter may only require knowledge of which features associated with a referent are more frequent or likely in general, adaption requires a sustained awareness of referential pattern frequency as it changes in the local discourse context. Though representing knowledge about semantic relations was observed as early as the analogical reasoning task in Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013), human-like extraction of abstract information like a persistent discourse state is more challenging. The model may only be able to identify thematic roles (source or goal) of a referent and associate them with pronoun interpretation, but not to identify a consistent pattern of thematic roles across a discourse. If so, this would explain the strong goal bias we observed in Experiment 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 489, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, it is possible that LLM has an extremely strong goal bias that masks the influence of exposures. If so, this suggests that LLM over-represents the semantic knowledge encoded in pronoun interpretation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 489, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In either case, our results suggest that LLM do not encode semantic knowledge in a fully human-like way, even though they do demonstrate some human-like capacities for semantic understanding. Although we believe this gap can be mitigated via instruction fine-tuning or chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), these results still suggest we should consider incorporating semantically-informed objectives into self-supervised pre-training to a greater extent.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 554, + 489, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusions and Future Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 730, + 410, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By replicating a series of psycholinguistic experiments as closely as possible using in-context learning, this paper pioneered whether LLMs would adapt pronominal interpretation behaviors in a human-like way given exposure to referential patterns in the local discourse context. Our work suggests paths forward for replicating psycholinguistic experiments in a more faithful way that allows for comparisons between human and LLMs' behaviors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 615, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Several main limitations exist in our study in its current form. First, our reported results only simulated experimental participants by manipulating the temperature hyperparameter. We compared this approach with natural language prompting for Experiment 1, but that prompting did not increase \"participant\" diversity, so it was abandoned. Moreover, approaches for simulating psycholinguistic experimental \"participants\" could go far beyond what was tried here; our prompting method was relatively limited, and more detailed prompting could be included in future experimental simulations. Second, making a direct comparison with actual psycholinguistic experiments might not be the only method to investigate LLMs' discourse capacity. A comprehensive list of discourse probing tasks might play a similar role despite a different way (Koto et al., 2021). Third, this study is strictly behavioral: limited by both computational resources and obscure mechanisms of in-context learning, we do not dive into models' internal representations in our analyses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 111, + 884, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 480, + 672, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We are very grateful to Jennifer Arnold for sharing the stimuli and design of Johnson and Arnold (2022) with us.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 882, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 586, + 608, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Gati Aher, Rosa I. Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2022. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans.", + "Mira Ariel. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge.", + "Jennifer E Arnold. 1998. Reference form and discourse patterns. Stanford University.", + "Jennifer E Arnold. 2001. The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse processes, 31(2):137-162.", + "Jennifer E Arnold, Iris M Strangmann, Heeju Hwang, Sandra Zerkle, and Rebecca Nappa. 2018. Linguistic experience affects pronoun interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102:41-54.", + "Dale J Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68(3):255-278." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 609, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9501", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Holly P Branigan, Martin J Pickering, and Janet F McLean. 2005. Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3):468.", + "Susan E Brennan. 1995. Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive processes, 10(2):137-167.", + "Paul-Christian Bürkner. 2017. brms: An r package for bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of statistical software, 80:1-28.", + "Franklin Chang, Gary S Dell, Kathryn Bock, and Zenzi M Griffin. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 29(2):217-230.", + "Forrest Davis and Marten van Schijndel. 2020. Discourse structure interacts with reference but not syntax in neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04887.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Richard Futrell, Ethan Wilcox, Takashi Morita, Peng Qian, Miguel Ballesteros, and Roger Levy. 2019. Neural language models as psycholinguistic subjects: Representations of syntactic state. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 32-42, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jennifer Hu, Jon Gauthier, Peng Qian, Ethan Wilcox, and Roger Levy. 2020. A systematic assessment of syntactic generalization in neural language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1725-1744, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Elyce D Johnson and Jennifer E Arnold. 2022. The frequency of referential patterns guides pronoun comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Fajri Koto, Joy Han Lau, and Timothy Baldwin. 2021. Discourse probing of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3849-3864, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dominique Makowski, Mattan S Ben-Shachar, and Daniel Lüdecke. 2019. bayestestr: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40):1541.", + "Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Kanishka Misra, Allyson Ettinger, and Julia Rayz. 2020. Exploring BERT's sensitivity to lexical cues using tests from semantic priming. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4625-4635, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.", + "Jenny R Saffran, Richard N Aslin, and Elissa L Newport. 1996a. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294):1926-1928.", + "Jenny R Saffran, Elissa L Newport, and Richard N Aslin. 1996b. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of memory and language, 35(4):606-621.", + "Sebastian Schuster and Judith Degen. 2020. I know what you're probably going to say: Listener adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions. Cognition, 203:104285.", + "Arabella Sinclair, Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Raquel Fernández. 2022. Structural Persistence in Language Models: Priming as a Window into Abstract Language Representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1031-1050.", + "Ionut-Teodor Sorodoc, Kristina Gulordava, and Gemma Boleda. 2020. Probing for referential information in language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4177–4189, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9502", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q. Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Siamak Shakeri, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Denny Zhou, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019. BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. CoRR, abs/1905.05950.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 173, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shiva Upadhye, Leon Bergen, and Andrew Kehler. 2020. Predicting reference: What do language models learn about discourse models? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 977-982, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 222, + 489, + 302 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 310, + 489, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Statistical Information", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 375, + 347, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each experiment, we analyzed referent choice (Subject = 1, Non-subject = 0) using a mixed-effects Bernoulli regression model from the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017), with the maximal random structure justified by design (Barr et al., 2013). Predictors are coded in the same way as in Johnson and Arnold (2022). All models were specified with a weakly informative prior using the Cauchy distribution with center 0 and scale 2.5. Models were fitted using six chains, each with 4,000 iterations of which the first 1,000 are warmup to calibrate the sampler, resulting in 18,000 posterior examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 400, + 489, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The model for Experiment 1a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5) and exposure type (PC, effects-coded: Subject-biased = 0.51, Object-biased = -0.49) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. Exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 593, + 489, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC + \n(1+QtypeC*PC|ID)+ \n(1+QtypeC|Subject), \ndata=(e1a, Exposure!= \"None\"), \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", \nchains=6, \niter=4000, \nwarmup=1000, \ncontrol =", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 775, + 448, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "list(adapt delta = 0.95), \nprior= \nc(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 581, + 84, + 880, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The model for Experiment 2a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Subject-biased = 0.5, Object-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. As in Experiment 1a, exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants. Similarly, verb bias was not included as a random slope for items here because it does not vary within items.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 145, + 884, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC*Vc + \n(1+PC*Qtypec|Item)+ \n(1+QtypeC*Vc|Subject), \ndata=e2a, \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", chains=6, \niter=4000, warmup=1000, \ncontrol = list(adapt delta = 0.98), \ncores = 6, \nprior= \nc(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 404, + 884, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The model for Experiment 2b included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Goal = 0.5, Source = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Goal-biased = 0.5, Source-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors. The random effect structure was the same as that of Experiment 2a.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 577, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "brm (Rc ~ PC\\*Vc\\*QtypeC \n+ (1+PC\\*QtypeC|Item) \n+ (1+Vc\\*QtypeC|Subject), \ndata=e2b, \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", \nchains=6, \niter=4000, \nwarmup=1000, \ncontrol = \n list(adapt delta = 0.999), \ncores = 6, \nprior= \n c(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))", + "guess_lang": "python", + "bbox": [ + 554, + 709, + 882, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9503", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Temperature vs. Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 364, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our prompt-based simulation of multiple participants embedded names, countries, prefixes, and genders into a carrier sentence: $\\{Prefix + Name\\}$ is a native English speaker living in {Country}. {Gender} is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions. For example, Mr. Smith is a native English speaker living in England. He is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 489, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we calculated the variance and ran the Levene's test for any significant difference between humans and InstructGPT in each experiment. In experiment 1, the human responses' variance is 0.055, the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.024, and the prompt-based responses' variance is 0.017. Human responses were significantly higher than both (Temperature-based: $p = .049$ ; Prompt-based: $p = .007$ ). Yet, temperature-based were not significantly higher than prompt-based. Due to the limitation of API pricing, we only ran temperature-based in the following experiments. In experiment 2a, the human responses' variance is 0.034 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.043. Yet, Levene's test did not reveal any significant difference. In Experiment 2b, the human responses' variance is 0.020 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.008 ( $p < .001$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 254, + 489, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We used different techniques to introduce randomness and include more experimental data in our experiments. We realized these were not well-designed prompts to elicit different linguistic backgrounds. Given the lack of investigation on simulating multiple participants in psycholinguistics studies, we recognize this as a future direction of possible work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 545, + 489, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9504", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Last section without the number", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 391, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 186, + 349, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The introduction is in the first section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 431, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 215, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 347, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 363, + 248, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 390, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 407, + 248, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 498, + 248, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 524, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 573, + 248, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 599, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 632, + 248, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 658, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 740, + 248, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 494, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiments were described in section 3.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 436, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the method section, we described our parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 846, + 539, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9505", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. We did not do a hyperparameter search.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 117, + 564, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 142, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide detailed results in the results section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 192, + 510, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 217, + 882, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide existing packages' information in the methods section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 267, + 636, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 882, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 373, + 248, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 399, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 449, + 248, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 475, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 524, + 248, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 549, + 873, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 565, + 248, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 592, + 880, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 626, + 248, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9506", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_model.json b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbccac4a669803146a9a56f32be49b04d2bfe9c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2373 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.09, + 0.877, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.124, + 0.882, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suet-Ying Lam†* Qingcheng Zeng‡* Kexun Zhang◇* Chenyu You* Rob Voigt‡" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.316, + 0.158, + 0.686, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Department of Linguistics, UMass Amherst" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.175, + 0.72, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\ddagger\\) Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.325, + 0.193, + 0.678, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\diamond\\) Department of Computer Science, UCSB" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.272, + 0.209, + 0.73, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\clubsuit\\) Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While a large body of literature suggests that large language models (LLMs) acquire rich linguistic representations, little is known about whether they adapt to linguistic biases in a human-like way. The present study probes this question by asking whether LLMs display human-like referential biases using stimuli and procedures from real psycholinguistic experiments. Recent psycholinguistic studies suggest that humans adapt their referential biases with recent exposure to referential patterns; closely replicating three relevant psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in an in-context learning (ICL) framework, we found that InstructGPT adapts its pronominal interpretations in response to the frequency of referential patterns in the local discourse, though in a limited fashion: adaptation was only observed relative to syntactic but not semantic biases. By contrast, FLAN-UL2 fails to generate meaningful patterns. Our results provide further evidence that contemporary LLMs discourse representations are sensitive to syntactic patterns in the local context but less so to semantic patterns. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/zkx06111/1lm_priming." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.681, + 0.26, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.708, + 0.491, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While neural network models, and particularly pretrained large language models have shown excellent performance at particular language processing tasks, many questions remain about the extent to which models optimized for such performance encode, as a side effect, human-like linguistic knowledge and cognitive biases. We know that they do to some extent; existing work has shown, for example, that neural models encode aspects of human-like long-distance number agreement (Gulordava et al., 2018), incremental syntactic state (Futrell et al.," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.885, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2019), and syntactic generalization more broadly (Hu et al., 2020). In this paper, we examine whether FLAN-UL2 (Tay et al., 2023) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), two representative LLMs, display adaptation in pronoun interpretation when exposed to consistent referential patterns in the local discourse context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.885, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared with syntactic or lexical knowledge, representing referential knowledge is possibly more complex; we know from psycholinguistic studies that human referential interpretation integrates multiple levels of linguistic structure. Humans do not interpret ambiguous pronouns at random but are guided by both syntactic and semantic information. It is well-established that absent other cues humans prefer a syntactic subject in choosing the antecedent of the ambiguous pronoun, i.e., subject bias (Ariel, 1990; Brennan, 1995). In example (1), she is more likely to be interpreted as the subject Ada than the non-subject Eva \\(\\mathbb{I}\\) , even though both referents are possible antecedents for the pronoun." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.621, + 0.776, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) \\(\\mathrm{Ada}_1\\) talked with \\(\\mathrm{Eva}_2\\). She..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.65, + 0.885, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "People are also sensitive to the semantic structure of the sentence when choosing an antecedent for an ambiguous pronoun, in addition to syntactic information. In a transfer event that depicts a transfer-of-possession from one entity (the source) to another (the goal), they prefer the goal referent (Ada in (2), Eva in (3)) over the source referent (Eva in (2), Ada in (3)) to be the antecedent (Arnold, 2001, 1998), i.e., goal bias:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.807, + 0.717, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) Goal-source (gs) verb:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.824, + 0.85, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ada1 received a letter from Eva2. She1..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.852, + 0.715, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) Source-goal (sg) verb:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.869, + 0.797, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ada1 sent a letter to Eva2. She2..." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Indices of pronouns in examples indicate the preferred referent." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.48, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9493" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.769, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 9493-9506" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.96, + 0.702, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In sum, people exhibit sensitivity to both syntax (subject bias) and semantics (goal bias) during pronoun interpretation. Importantly, these levels of linguistic structure are frequently entwined since both can influence referential interpretation. At times these influences may push in different directions: for instance, Ada in [3] is both the syntactic subject and the semantic source." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.218, + 0.492, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Building on a long tradition investigating preferences in pronoun interpretation, recent psycholinguistic studies have probed into the deeper question of the origin of these biases. One hypothesis is that referential biases come from linguistic experience: when a bias occurs very frequently, people will tend to adapt this more frequent referential pattern, both in the immediate exposure as well as more large-scale past experience (Arnold, 1998, 2001). Recent evidence has provided support to this idea by demonstrating that recent exposure to certain referential patterns did change people's referential biases. In a series of psycholinguistic studies, Johnson and Arnold (2022) show that after reading numerous stories that consistently show a particular referential bias, e.g., always referring to the non-subject or source referent, people did have a stronger preference for these primed referents." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.513, + 0.49, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given this line of psycholinguistic research, the current study investigates the extent to which LLMs adapt and vary referential biases in pronoun interpretation through exposure to referential patterns in the local context. To do so we replicated actual psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in LLMs using an ICL framework and asked whether the responses of LLMs display adaptation from exposure to referential patterns like human experimental participants. Comparing syntactically-motivated to semantically-motivated exposure conditions will allow us to first examine whether LLMs display human-like subject bias and goal bias and further understand the extent to which LLMs make use of local frequency changes in discourse representations in these categories." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-context learning refers to LLMs' ability to learn from demonstrations written in natural language prompts. Compared to previous work that has largely examined the encoding of such discourse knowledge using zero-shot inference (Upadhye et al., 2020), ICL is particularly suitable for experimental simulation since it replicates the naturalistic context in which later responses draw upon exposure to previous examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Foreshadowing our results, we find that InstructGPT can adapt and thus vary its syntactic bias from exposure to referential patterns in the local context, but the same is not true for semantic bias. Given that InstructGPT still exhibits a goal bias in spite of local discourse priming, we argue this suggests LLMs only encode partial semantic knowledge in referential processing. To sum up, our contributions can be summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.238, + 0.887, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) We extended a discourse understanding evaluation to state-of-the-art LLMs from a new perspective, asking whether LLM's referential bias can be modified by exposure to particular referential patterns, like how humans adapt referential bias from experience." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.344, + 0.885, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) To the best of our knowledge, we are the first study that replicates actual psycholinguistic experiments using the ICL framework and compares LLMs' behaviors with real human participants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.433, + 0.887, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3) We present results in this context showing further evidence that InstructGPT can acquire abstract syntactic knowledge in referential interpretation to some extent, but not semantic knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.238, + 0.887, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.524, + 0.666, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.885, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A growing body of literature has suggested that LLMs encode rich representations of linguistic structure at various levels, including aspects of syntax, semantics, and reference encoded throughout their representations (Tenney et al., 2019). One of the most well-documented lines of this work demonstrates that these models can acquire diverse elements of syntactic knowledge (Gulordava et al., 2018; Futrell et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This capacity for encoding linguistic understanding extends to priming effects with psycholinguistic analogies to humans. At the syntactic level, Sinclair et al. (2022) explored structural priming in various autoregressive LLMs and found priming effects despite a clear dependence on semantic information. At the semantic level, using English lexical stimuli in BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Misra et al. (2020) found that BERT does display evidence of sensitivity to semantic priming, though this is localized to more unconstrained contexts and only certain semantic relations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In analyses of LLMs' linguistic understanding modeled on psycholinguistic experiments, however," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9494" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the question of discourse knowledge remains relatively under-explored. Recent existing work has presented partially conflicting accounts in this area, in particular with regard to how LLMs may or may not exhibit human-like biases in pronoun interpretation. For example, Davis and van Schijndel (2020) compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs behaviors and internal representations in dealing with implicit causality verbs, finding that surprisingly (contrary to humans) implicit causality only influences Transformer LMs' behavior for reference, but influences neither model for syntactic attachment. Sorodoc et al. (2020) also compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs in coreference resolution corpora, finding that although LMs are much better at grammar, they also captured referential aspects to some extent." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.36, + 0.49, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This existing work replicates sets of individual stimuli from psycholinguistic experiments in isolation; by contrast, our work takes a more behaviorally-oriented approach by replicating the stimuli, procedure, and even experimental design of a full set of human psycholinguistic studies. We do this to ask a further question: beyond exhibiting baseline human-like referential biases in pronoun interpretation, do LLMs display adaptation to the frequency of referential patterns in the local context like humans? This question is important because adapting to a referential bias over the course of an experiment requires a sustained representation of the frequency of the pattern, which involves a higher-level understanding of the discourse structure. Humans have shown abilities of this kind of adaptation at multiple linguistic levels. For instance, exposure to syntactic structures consecutively affects humans' choice of structures in both the short term and long term via priming effects (e.g., Branigan et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2000). Exposure to phonological patterns can also guide humans' segmentation patterns (e.g., Saffran et al. 1996a,b). At the semantic and pragmatic levels, humans can also adapt as listeners to speakers' variable choices of uncertainty expressions (Schuster and Degen, 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.811, + 0.224, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we aim to replicate three experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022), transferring their designs, procedures, and stimuli as faithfully as possible to the LLM context using in-context learning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.713, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Source Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.109, + 0.884, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first briefly summarize the experimental setup employed by Johnson and Arnold (2022). In each experimental setting, participants heard a series of two-sentence stories in which the first sentence contained two characters with gender-marked first names (Matt or Will for men, Liz or Ana for women). For each story, participants answered a content question to check comprehension, and then a reference question to check pronominal interpretation. In order to lower the ceiling and keep participants from falling into a pattern of simply answering \"yes,\" reference questions were equally split between default and non-default phrasings (e.g. between the subject/non-subject interpretations in Experiment 1a and 2a and between the source/goal interpretations in Experiment 2b). Figure 1 illustrates sample stimuli and the procedure of the three experiments conducted." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In each experiment participants were first shown a series of stories with exposure reference questions to establish a referential pattern; in these, the characters had different genders so pronoun interpretation was unambiguous. After the exposure phase (20 stories in Experiment 1, 12 stories in Experiment 2), further stories with unambiguous exposure questions were intermixed with 12 stories accompanied by critical reference questions; in these stories, the characters had the same gender, so pronoun interpretation was ambiguous and required reliance on discourse cues." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.596, + 0.884, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Across experiments, there were two key conditions that were manipulated for exposures. Under a subject exposure condition, the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are subjects of the preceding clauses; in the corresponding non-subject exposure condition, they are the objects of the preceding clauses. Similarly, under a goal exposure condition the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are goal referents while in a source exposure condition they are source referents." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.773, + 0.884, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aiming to transfer these experiments as faithfully as possible to the LLM context, we used this experimental paradigm to evaluate the LLM by providing the model with the full text of each story prompt and content/reference question, then generated tokens in response which we interpreted as answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For clarity, we use the same experiment numbers and identifiers as in Johnson and Arnold (2022)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9495" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.09, + 0.878, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.398, + 0.884, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Illustrated Experimental Procedure. Closely following the setup with human participants in Johnson and Arnold (2022), LLMs were primed via exposure to story/question pairs with unambiguous referents, and tested for their responses on ambiguous target pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.466, + 0.489, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that we did not replicate experiments 1b and 1c, which investigated whether people are still sensitive to referential patterns using different types of referential expressions (e.g., third-person names and first- and second-person pronouns). While these experiments provided insights into the linguistic structure at which people generalize referential biases, they were less relevant to the objective of this study and thus were not included." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.621, + 0.49, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiment 1a In this experiment, all story prompts contain \"joint-action\" verbs using \"with\" in the form \"X did something with Y.\" Since these verbs lack a clear semantic bias (e.g., Arnold et al. 2018), this context allows us to evaluate LLMs' sensitivity to syntax-based biases in discourse by asking whether exposure to only subject-bias or object-bias examples will influence following answers on the ambiguous critical items. If LLMs are sensitive to syntax-based referential patterns, we expect more subject responses under the subject exposure condition and more non-subject responses under the non-subject exposure condition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiment 2a Experiment 2a forms a bridge between adaptation to syntactic and semantic constraints. Are LLMs able to track patterns in both categories, for instance learning an exposure bias in one category while ignoring variation in the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.466, + 0.885, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "other? In this experiment, all story prompts contain source/goal verbs like \"give\" and \"receive,\" but these are distributed equally throughout exposures. The manipulation remains the same as Experiment 1a, in which LLMs are exposed to consistent and unambiguous subject interpretations in the subject exposure condition and non-subject interpretations in the non-subject exposure condition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.608, + 0.885, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiment 2b This experiment focuses solely on source/goal biases, in which all story prompts contain source/goal words, but the unambiguous exposure items are manipulated to contain only source references in the source exposure condition and only goal references in the goal exposure condition." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.736, + 0.715, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 In-context Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose that since these experiments rely on short-term learning effects of exposure in an experimental context, they can only be effectively simulated with LLMs by using in-context learning recursively. Specifically, for each question, the model is provided access to all previous items in answering a new question, including its own previous responses. This is intended to mirror the process of human experimental participants making judgments in the light of recent exposure to input and" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9496" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.085, + 0.877, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.376, + 0.883, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The ICL Simulation Framework. Black text is provided to the models as prompts, red text is generated by the model. With the last step's output appended to previous prompts, we ask LLMs the next question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.431, + 0.303, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "their own past responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.448, + 0.487, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We manually checked the correctness of LLM responses to content questions intended to check comprehension, and as in the human experimentation context removed answers for which the LLMs provided incorrect answers. The answers to critical target questions were recorded for further statistical analysis. Our ICL procedure is shown in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.574, + 0.431, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Models and Experimental Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.597, + 0.489, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We used text-davinci-003 from the OpenAI API and open-sourced FLAN-UL2 as the LLMs of interest. Though these models are of course not exhaustive of the current landscape of LLMs, they provide some diversity since they differ in both structure (decoder-only vs. encoder-decoder) and parameter count (175B vs. 20B). To introduce more randomness into the experiment and allow enough sample sizes for statistical comparisons across conditions, we made slight modifications to the temperature hyperparameter on each run. Specifically, we assigned each run a random and unique temperature value between 0.2 to 1.0." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also attempted to simulate 'participants' using a natural language prompt to approach different speaker identities following a similar methodology to Aher et al. (2022). We developed prompts with slots for titles, names, and country of origin to establish different character backgrounds simulating native English speakers from the United" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.431, + 0.885, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "States, Britain, and Australia, following the participants' demographics in Johnson and Arnold (2022). However, these prompts did not induce greater diversity in responses than temperature modification, so only results using temperature modification are presented below. We present a further analysis for both methodologies in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.544, + 0.884, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the end, we simulated 24 'participants' each in Experiment 1a and Experiment 2a, and 60 'participants' in Experiment 2b. We included more in Experiment 2b because this experiment has a lower response variability and thus needs more data points for the statistical analysis." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.655, + 0.634, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Measures" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following the analytic approach of Johnson and Arnold (2022), we used a regression-based approach to analyze whether the responses of LM are consistent with the subject or gogoalal bias of the context for each experiment. We can then compare our findings with theirs by asking whether the effect of the main predictors is the same. In all experiments, predictors included exposure type (unambiguous exposures to subject/non-subject or goal/source), reference question type (whether the reference question is asked about the subject/non-subject or goal/source), and the interaction effect between them. Experiment 2 included verb type, as well as its two-way and three-way interaction effects with the other two predictors as addi" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9497" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.086, + 0.496, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.499, + 0.086, + 0.881, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.364, + 0.884, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 1a, showing the percentage of subject responses for each type of reference question (Subj Q: subject reference question; Obj Q: object reference question), grouped by exposure type (subject exposure: light blue; object exposure: dark blue)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.433, + 0.489, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tional predictors. Given our small dataset, the results were analyzed using Bayesian mixed-effects Bernoulli logistic regression models in the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017) instead of a frequentist model. We report a Bayesian equivalent p-value (p_MAP) computed with the R package bayestestR (Makowski et al., 2019) to offer a straightforward interpretation of the results. Details of models are provided in Appendix 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.594, + 0.214, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.623, + 0.253, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 FLAN-UL2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We found that FLAN-UL2 was not capable of generating meaningful output for analysis under this design. First, FLAN-UL2 showed a much higher false rate in answering content questions versus InstructGPT: while InstructGPT replied \\(100\\%\\) correctly to these questions, FLAN-UL2 replied to only \\(57\\%\\) correctly. Second, for the ambiguous target items, FLAN-UL2 answered 'yes' \\(100\\%\\) of the time, indicating an extremely strong bias towards simply answering 'yes' and producing no meaningful variation. By contrast, InstructGPT answered 'yes' to target questions \\(68\\%\\) of the time, suggesting some amount of 'yes' bias but to a much weaker degree. From these findings we concluded that FLAN-UL2 did not produce sufficiently clean outputs for analysis; therefore, in the following sections, we will focus on results from InstructGPT." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.433, + 0.673, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experiment 1a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.464, + 0.885, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiment 1a asks whether LLMs are sensitive to the frequency of referential patterns when subject referents are preferred. Figure 3 compares the subject responses of our results with Johnson and Arnold (2022)'s results. In both LLM and human data, we saw fewer subject responses in object exposure than in subject exposure. This is confirmed by the main effect of exposure type \\((p\\_MAP < .001)\\) revealed in the statistical analyses. There was also a main effect of response question type \\((p\\_MAP = .009)\\). As seen from the figure, there were more subject responses in the subject than object reference questions in both human and LLM data. This is because InstructGPT did answer 'yes' more frequently in general, which led to more subject interpretations when the question asked about the subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a subject interpretation), and fewer subject interpretations when the question was asked about the non-subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a non-subject interpretation)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, we did not find any interaction effect between exposure type and reference question type. While Johnson and Arnold (2022) found that exposure type has a significant effect for subject-referent questions but only a marginal effect for the nonsubject-referent questions, the exposure effect was significant for both question types in our" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9498" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.416, + 0.089, + 0.582, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "exposure subject object" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.105, + 0.496, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.106, + 0.878, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.364, + 0.885, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2a. The proportion of subject responses is plotted against question type faceting by verb type, comparing goal-subject verbs (gs) like \"receive,\" where the subject is the goal referent) to subject-goal verbs (sg) like \"send,\" where the subject is the source referent." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "results. InstructGPT is sensitive to exposure type even for nonsubject-referent questions, as reflected in Figure 3: there were no subject responses when non-subject reference questions were asked under the non-subject exposure condition. This suggests that LLM may even be more sensitive to the exposure effect than humans. Overall, Experiment 1 shows that LLM can indeed learn from recent exposure to syntactically-oriented referential patterns, in a relatively more non-subject-biased way." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.623, + 0.277, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Experiment 2a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We ask in Experiment 2a if the sensitivity to subject reference patterns observed in Experiment 1a persists independent of semantic variability in the local context. Figure 4 illustrates the responses of LLM and human participants by exposure, reference question, and verb type. The behavior of InstructGPT is in line with what Johnson and Arnold (2022) found in human participants for Experiment 2a: as in Experiment 1, statistical analyses revealed a significant main effect of referent question type \\((p\\_ MAP = .034)\\), despite a marginally significant effect of exposure type \\((p\\_ MAP = .085)\\). InstructGPT did understand the pronoun as subject referents more after subject exposure and said 'yes' more often such that there were more subject interpretations when the critical question was asked about the subject. InstructGPT also showed a goal" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.447, + 0.885, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "bias: there was a main effect of verb type (\\(p\\_MAP = .001\\)), such that it referred to the subject more with gs verbs (where the subject is the goal referent) than sg verbs (where the subject is the source referent). We observed no interaction effect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.884, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In spite of these similarities, we still observe differences between LLM and human participants. Notice in Figure 4 that there is a larger difference between gs and sg verbs in InstructGPT than in human participants while keeping other conditions constant, suggesting that LLMs may have a larger goal bias than humans." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.655, + 0.673, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Experiment 2b" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiment 2b examines whether InstructGPT is still sensitive to exposure to referential patterns that exhibit consistent preferences for a source or goal referent. Figure 5 compares the results from InstructGPT and human participants. Whereas Johnson and Arnold (2022) reported significant main effects from exposure type, reference question type, and verb type, as well as a marginal interaction effect between verb type and exposure, we did not find any effect from these predictors, but only an interaction effect between verb type and question type \\((p\\_ MAP < .001)\\). We further examined the effect of question type and exposure type for each verb type, but no significant effect was found for either predictor. These results suggest that exposure" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9499" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.086, + 0.5, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.086, + 0.88, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.364, + 0.808, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Goal responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2b." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.404, + 0.49, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "did not necessarily change InstructGPT's behaviors: for goal questions, both the goal and source exposure conditions led to \\(100\\%\\) goal responses. Reference question type also did not affect InstructGPT's responses, because it almost always interprets the pronoun as the goal referent under subject exposure. The lack of any significant effects, and indeed our observed universal goal interpretations to goal-focused reference questions, suggest that InstructGPT displays an extreme goal bias in pronoun interpretation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.598, + 0.241, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The present study examined whether and to what extent LLMs display adaptation for pronominal interpretation after exposure to referential patterns by replicating three psycholinguistic experiments. Exposed to the same stimuli and study design, and analyzed with the same statistical procedures as the source experiments, we asked whether LLMs show human-like behaviors and compared the performance of LLMs-simulated participants with human participants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We firstly found a difference between the capacity of contemporary models to replicate human psycholinguistic experimental designs in an ICL framework. While InstructGPT was able to correctly answer all the presented comprehension-check content questions, FLAN-UL2 was not. Both models displayed at least some bias towards answering 'yes' in ambiguous cases, but in the case of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.404, + 0.885, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "FLAN-UL2 this bias resulted in \\(100\\%\\) 'yes' answers, rendering meaningful variation impossible to ascertain. This could be a result of structural differences between the models (decoder-only in the case of InstructGPT, encoder-decoder in the case of FLAN-UL2), or perhaps more likely a question of simple model size (175B for InstructGPT vs. 20B for FLAN-UL2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.885, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiments 1a and 2a examined whether LLMs adapt their syntactic bias from recent exposure to referential patterns like humans, without and with the presence of possibly confounding semantic goal bias. We found that LLM's referential biases are indeed sensitive to such exposure in both experiments. In addition, LLM did exhibit a goal bias in Experiment 2a, in line with previous studies which argue for LLM's ability to exhibit human-like semantic bias in pronoun interpretation (e.g., Davis and van Schijndel 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiment 2b examined whether LLM can adapt and vary their semantic bias from exposures. In this context, in contrast with the previous two experiments, exposure type did not affect LLM behavior at all. This raises the question of why LLM would be sensitive to exposure to only referential patterns that exhibit consistent syntactic bias but not semantic bias. An immediate and intuitive answer would be that LLM is unable to fully represent semantic knowledge in referential processing. However, given that LLM did display a human-like goal bias in pronoun interpretation independent of exposure, this explanation seems unlikely." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9500" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We suggest that our work provides evidence that LLM only partially represents the semantic knowledge involved in referential processing for two reasons." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.15, + 0.49, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, adapting referential biases on the basis of exposure in the local context may require representations of higher-level knowledge than merely exhibiting a bias towards certain referents. While the latter may only require knowledge of which features associated with a referent are more frequent or likely in general, adaption requires a sustained awareness of referential pattern frequency as it changes in the local discourse context. Though representing knowledge about semantic relations was observed as early as the analogical reasoning task in Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013), human-like extraction of abstract information like a persistent discourse state is more challenging. The model may only be able to identify thematic roles (source or goal) of a referent and associate them with pronoun interpretation, but not to identify a consistent pattern of thematic roles across a discourse. If so, this would explain the strong goal bias we observed in Experiment 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.474, + 0.49, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, it is possible that LLM has an extremely strong goal bias that masks the influence of exposures. If so, this suggests that LLM over-represents the semantic knowledge encoded in pronoun interpretation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.555, + 0.49, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In either case, our results suggest that LLM do not encode semantic knowledge in a fully human-like way, even though they do demonstrate some human-like capacities for semantic understanding. Although we believe this gap can be mitigated via instruction fine-tuning or chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), these results still suggest we should consider incorporating semantically-informed objectives into self-supervised pre-training to a greater extent." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.731, + 0.411, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusions and Future Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By replicating a series of psycholinguistic experiments as closely as possible using in-context learning, this paper pioneered whether LLMs would adapt pronominal interpretation behaviors in a human-like way given exposure to referential patterns in the local discourse context. Our work suggests paths forward for replicating psycholinguistic experiments in a more faithful way that allows for comparisons between human and LLMs' behaviors." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.616, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.112, + 0.885, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Several main limitations exist in our study in its current form. First, our reported results only simulated experimental participants by manipulating the temperature hyperparameter. We compared this approach with natural language prompting for Experiment 1, but that prompting did not increase \"participant\" diversity, so it was abandoned. Moreover, approaches for simulating psycholinguistic experimental \"participants\" could go far beyond what was tried here; our prompting method was relatively limited, and more detailed prompting could be included in future experimental simulations. Second, making a direct comparison with actual psycholinguistic experiments might not be the only method to investigate LLMs' discourse capacity. A comprehensive list of discourse probing tasks might play a similar role despite a different way (Koto et al., 2021). Third, this study is strictly behavioral: limited by both computational resources and obscure mechanisms of in-context learning, we do not dive into models' internal representations in our analyses." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.481, + 0.673, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.509, + 0.884, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We are very grateful to Jennifer Arnold for sharing the stimuli and design of Johnson and Arnold (2022) with us." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.587, + 0.61, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.611, + 0.884, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gati Aher, Rosa I. Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2022. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.665, + 0.885, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mira Ariel. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.705, + 0.885, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jennifer E Arnold. 1998. Reference form and discourse patterns. Stanford University." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.746, + 0.885, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jennifer E Arnold. 2001. The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse processes, 31(2):137-162." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.799, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jennifer E Arnold, Iris M Strangmann, Heeju Hwang, Sandra Zerkle, and Rebecca Nappa. 2018. Linguistic experience affects pronoun interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102:41-54." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.865, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dale J Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68(3):255-278." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.611, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9501" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Holly P Branigan, Martin J Pickering, and Janet F McLean. 2005. Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3):468." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.16, + 0.488, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Susan E Brennan. 1995. Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive processes, 10(2):137-167." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.208, + 0.488, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paul-Christian Bürkner. 2017. brms: An r package for bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of statistical software, 80:1-28." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.255, + 0.488, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Franklin Chang, Gary S Dell, Kathryn Bock, and Zenzi M Griffin. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 29(2):217-230." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.329, + 0.488, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Forrest Davis and Marten van Schijndel. 2020. Discourse structure interacts with reference but not syntax in neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04887." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.389, + 0.488, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.488, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Futrell, Ethan Wilcox, Takashi Morita, Peng Qian, Miguel Ballesteros, and Roger Levy. 2019. Neural language models as psycholinguistic subjects: Representations of syntactic state. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 32-42, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.641, + 0.488, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.766, + 0.488, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jennifer Hu, Jon Gauthier, Peng Qian, Ethan Wilcox, and Roger Levy. 2020. A systematic assessment of syntactic generalization in neural language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1725-1744, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elyce D Johnson and Jennifer E Arnold. 2022. The frequency of referential patterns guides pronoun comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fajri Koto, Joy Han Lau, and Timothy Baldwin. 2021. Discourse probing of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3849-3864, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.192, + 0.883, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dominique Makowski, Mattan S Ben-Shachar, and Daniel Lüdecke. 2019. bayestestr: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40):1541." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.272, + 0.883, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.351, + 0.883, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kanishka Misra, Allyson Ettinger, and Julia Rayz. 2020. Exploring BERT's sensitivity to lexical cues using tests from semantic priming. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4625-4635, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.443, + 0.883, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.562, + 0.883, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jenny R Saffran, Richard N Aslin, and Elissa L Newport. 1996a. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294):1926-1928." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.615, + 0.883, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jenny R Saffran, Elissa L Newport, and Richard N Aslin. 1996b. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of memory and language, 35(4):606-621." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.682, + 0.883, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Schuster and Judith Degen. 2020. I know what you're probably going to say: Listener adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions. Cognition, 203:104285." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.748, + 0.883, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arabella Sinclair, Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Raquel Fernández. 2022. Structural Persistence in Language Models: Priming as a Window into Abstract Language Representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1031-1050." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ionut-Teodor Sorodoc, Kristina Gulordava, and Gemma Boleda. 2020. Probing for referential information in language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4177–4189, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9502" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q. Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Siamak Shakeri, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Denny Zhou, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.174, + 0.49, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019. BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. CoRR, abs/1905.05950." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.223, + 0.49, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shiva Upadhye, Leon Bergen, and Andrew Kehler. 2020. Predicting reference: What do language models learn about discourse models? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 977-982, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.311, + 0.49, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.376, + 0.349, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Statistical Information" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.401, + 0.49, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each experiment, we analyzed referent choice (Subject = 1, Non-subject = 0) using a mixed-effects Bernoulli regression model from the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017), with the maximal random structure justified by design (Barr et al., 2013). Predictors are coded in the same way as in Johnson and Arnold (2022). All models were specified with a weakly informative prior using the Cauchy distribution with center 0 and scale 2.5. Models were fitted using six chains, each with 4,000 iterations of which the first 1,000 are warmup to calibrate the sampler, resulting in 18,000 posterior examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.594, + 0.49, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The model for Experiment 1a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5) and exposure type (PC, effects-coded: Subject-biased = 0.51, Object-biased = -0.49) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. Exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants." + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.776, + 0.449, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC + \n(1+QtypeC*PC|ID)+ \n(1+QtypeC|Subject), \ndata=(e1a, Exposure!= \"None\"), \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", \nchains=6, \niter=4000, \nwarmup=1000, \ncontrol =" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.583, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "list(adapt delta = 0.95), \nprior= \nc(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.146, + 0.885, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The model for Experiment 2a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Subject-biased = 0.5, Object-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. As in Experiment 1a, exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants. Similarly, verb bias was not included as a random slope for items here because it does not vary within items." + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.405, + 0.885, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC*Vc + \n(1+PC*Qtypec|Item)+ \n(1+QtypeC*Vc|Subject), \ndata=e2a, \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", chains=6, \niter=4000, warmup=1000, \ncontrol = list(adapt delta = 0.98), \ncores = 6, \nprior= \nc(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.578, + 0.884, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The model for Experiment 2b included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Goal = 0.5, Source = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Goal-biased = 0.5, Source-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors. The random effect structure was the same as that of Experiment 2a." + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.556, + 0.711, + 0.883, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "brm (Rc ~ PC\\*Vc\\*QtypeC \n+ (1+PC\\*QtypeC|Item) \n+ (1+Vc\\*QtypeC|Subject), \ndata=e2b, \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", \nchains=6, \niter=4000, \nwarmup=1000, \ncontrol = \n list(adapt delta = 0.999), \ncores = 6, \nprior= \n c(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9503" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.366, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Temperature vs. Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.49, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our prompt-based simulation of multiple participants embedded names, countries, prefixes, and genders into a carrier sentence: \\(\\{Prefix + Name\\}\\) is a native English speaker living in {Country}. {Gender} is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions. For example, Mr. Smith is a native English speaker living in England. He is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.255, + 0.49, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we calculated the variance and ran the Levene's test for any significant difference between humans and InstructGPT in each experiment. In experiment 1, the human responses' variance is 0.055, the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.024, and the prompt-based responses' variance is 0.017. Human responses were significantly higher than both (Temperature-based: \\( p = .049 \\); Prompt-based: \\( p = .007 \\)). Yet, temperature-based were not significantly higher than prompt-based. Due to the limitation of API pricing, we only ran temperature-based in the following experiments. In experiment 2a, the human responses' variance is 0.034 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.043. Yet, Levene's test did not reveal any significant difference. In Experiment 2b, the human responses' variance is 0.020 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.008 (\\( p < .001 \\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.546, + 0.49, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We used different techniques to introduce randomness and include more experimental data in our experiments. We realized these were not well-designed prompts to elicit different linguistic backgrounds. Given the lack of investigation on simulating multiple participants in psycholinguistics studies, we recognize this as a future direction of possible work." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9504" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.145, + 0.393, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Last section without the number" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.171, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.187, + 0.351, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.697, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.231, + 0.433, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The introduction is in the first section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.257, + 0.67, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.274, + 0.233, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.216, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.348, + 0.531, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.365, + 0.249, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.408, + 0.249, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.499, + 0.249, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.574, + 0.249, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.633, + 0.249, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.741, + 0.249, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.495, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.788, + 0.437, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiments were described in section 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.847, + 0.54, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the method section, we described our parameters." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9505" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.118, + 0.566, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. We did not do a hyperparameter search." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.884, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.193, + 0.511, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide detailed results in the results section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.268, + 0.638, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide existing packages' information in the methods section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.883, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.374, + 0.249, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.45, + 0.25, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.476, + 0.883, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.525, + 0.25, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.875, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.567, + 0.25, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.881, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.627, + 0.25, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9506" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_origin.pdf b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..115cecd39b6a4764fed05b9b77f48145dbe017c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/60280f41-b321-4144-822d-79720ae15459_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c98b4be6185cb33951c696c1acab0844e22d011d107ecb293c96426781d44b02 +size 561111 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/full.md b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5754d63a31358e483a4eab1efd253cc9bb747717 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ +# Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation + +Suet-Ying Lam†* Qingcheng Zeng‡* Kexun Zhang◇* Chenyu You* Rob Voigt‡ + +† Department of Linguistics, UMass Amherst + +$\ddagger$ Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University + +$\diamond$ Department of Computer Science, UCSB + +$\clubsuit$ Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University + +# Abstract + +While a large body of literature suggests that large language models (LLMs) acquire rich linguistic representations, little is known about whether they adapt to linguistic biases in a human-like way. The present study probes this question by asking whether LLMs display human-like referential biases using stimuli and procedures from real psycholinguistic experiments. Recent psycholinguistic studies suggest that humans adapt their referential biases with recent exposure to referential patterns; closely replicating three relevant psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in an in-context learning (ICL) framework, we found that InstructGPT adapts its pronominal interpretations in response to the frequency of referential patterns in the local discourse, though in a limited fashion: adaptation was only observed relative to syntactic but not semantic biases. By contrast, FLAN-UL2 fails to generate meaningful patterns. Our results provide further evidence that contemporary LLMs discourse representations are sensitive to syntactic patterns in the local context but less so to semantic patterns. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/zkx06111/1lm_priming. + +# 1 Introduction + +While neural network models, and particularly pretrained large language models have shown excellent performance at particular language processing tasks, many questions remain about the extent to which models optimized for such performance encode, as a side effect, human-like linguistic knowledge and cognitive biases. We know that they do to some extent; existing work has shown, for example, that neural models encode aspects of human-like long-distance number agreement (Gulordava et al., 2018), incremental syntactic state (Futrell et al., + +2019), and syntactic generalization more broadly (Hu et al., 2020). In this paper, we examine whether FLAN-UL2 (Tay et al., 2023) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), two representative LLMs, display adaptation in pronoun interpretation when exposed to consistent referential patterns in the local discourse context. + +Compared with syntactic or lexical knowledge, representing referential knowledge is possibly more complex; we know from psycholinguistic studies that human referential interpretation integrates multiple levels of linguistic structure. Humans do not interpret ambiguous pronouns at random but are guided by both syntactic and semantic information. It is well-established that absent other cues humans prefer a syntactic subject in choosing the antecedent of the ambiguous pronoun, i.e., subject bias (Ariel, 1990; Brennan, 1995). In example (1), she is more likely to be interpreted as the subject Ada than the non-subject Eva $\mathbb{I}$ , even though both referents are possible antecedents for the pronoun. + +(1) $\mathrm{Ada}_1$ talked with $\mathrm{Eva}_2$ . She... + +People are also sensitive to the semantic structure of the sentence when choosing an antecedent for an ambiguous pronoun, in addition to syntactic information. In a transfer event that depicts a transfer-of-possession from one entity (the source) to another (the goal), they prefer the goal referent (Ada in (2), Eva in (3)) over the source referent (Eva in (2), Ada in (3)) to be the antecedent (Arnold, 2001, 1998), i.e., goal bias: + +(2) Goal-source (gs) verb: + +Ada1 received a letter from Eva2. She1... + +(3) Source-goal (sg) verb: + +Ada1 sent a letter to Eva2. She2... + +In sum, people exhibit sensitivity to both syntax (subject bias) and semantics (goal bias) during pronoun interpretation. Importantly, these levels of linguistic structure are frequently entwined since both can influence referential interpretation. At times these influences may push in different directions: for instance, Ada in [3] is both the syntactic subject and the semantic source. + +Building on a long tradition investigating preferences in pronoun interpretation, recent psycholinguistic studies have probed into the deeper question of the origin of these biases. One hypothesis is that referential biases come from linguistic experience: when a bias occurs very frequently, people will tend to adapt this more frequent referential pattern, both in the immediate exposure as well as more large-scale past experience (Arnold, 1998, 2001). Recent evidence has provided support to this idea by demonstrating that recent exposure to certain referential patterns did change people's referential biases. In a series of psycholinguistic studies, Johnson and Arnold (2022) show that after reading numerous stories that consistently show a particular referential bias, e.g., always referring to the non-subject or source referent, people did have a stronger preference for these primed referents. + +Given this line of psycholinguistic research, the current study investigates the extent to which LLMs adapt and vary referential biases in pronoun interpretation through exposure to referential patterns in the local context. To do so we replicated actual psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in LLMs using an ICL framework and asked whether the responses of LLMs display adaptation from exposure to referential patterns like human experimental participants. Comparing syntactically-motivated to semantically-motivated exposure conditions will allow us to first examine whether LLMs display human-like subject bias and goal bias and further understand the extent to which LLMs make use of local frequency changes in discourse representations in these categories. + +In-context learning refers to LLMs' ability to learn from demonstrations written in natural language prompts. Compared to previous work that has largely examined the encoding of such discourse knowledge using zero-shot inference (Upadhye et al., 2020), ICL is particularly suitable for experimental simulation since it replicates the naturalistic context in which later responses draw upon exposure to previous examples. + +Foreshadowing our results, we find that InstructGPT can adapt and thus vary its syntactic bias from exposure to referential patterns in the local context, but the same is not true for semantic bias. Given that InstructGPT still exhibits a goal bias in spite of local discourse priming, we argue this suggests LLMs only encode partial semantic knowledge in referential processing. To sum up, our contributions can be summarized as follows: + +1) We extended a discourse understanding evaluation to state-of-the-art LLMs from a new perspective, asking whether LLM's referential bias can be modified by exposure to particular referential patterns, like how humans adapt referential bias from experience. +2) To the best of our knowledge, we are the first study that replicates actual psycholinguistic experiments using the ICL framework and compares LLMs' behaviors with real human participants. +3) We present results in this context showing further evidence that InstructGPT can acquire abstract syntactic knowledge in referential interpretation to some extent, but not semantic knowledge. + +# 2 Related Work + +A growing body of literature has suggested that LLMs encode rich representations of linguistic structure at various levels, including aspects of syntax, semantics, and reference encoded throughout their representations (Tenney et al., 2019). One of the most well-documented lines of this work demonstrates that these models can acquire diverse elements of syntactic knowledge (Gulordava et al., 2018; Futrell et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2020). + +This capacity for encoding linguistic understanding extends to priming effects with psycholinguistic analogies to humans. At the syntactic level, Sinclair et al. (2022) explored structural priming in various autoregressive LLMs and found priming effects despite a clear dependence on semantic information. At the semantic level, using English lexical stimuli in BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Misra et al. (2020) found that BERT does display evidence of sensitivity to semantic priming, though this is localized to more unconstrained contexts and only certain semantic relations. + +In analyses of LLMs' linguistic understanding modeled on psycholinguistic experiments, however, + +the question of discourse knowledge remains relatively under-explored. Recent existing work has presented partially conflicting accounts in this area, in particular with regard to how LLMs may or may not exhibit human-like biases in pronoun interpretation. For example, Davis and van Schijndel (2020) compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs behaviors and internal representations in dealing with implicit causality verbs, finding that surprisingly (contrary to humans) implicit causality only influences Transformer LMs' behavior for reference, but influences neither model for syntactic attachment. Sorodoc et al. (2020) also compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs in coreference resolution corpora, finding that although LMs are much better at grammar, they also captured referential aspects to some extent. + +This existing work replicates sets of individual stimuli from psycholinguistic experiments in isolation; by contrast, our work takes a more behaviorally-oriented approach by replicating the stimuli, procedure, and even experimental design of a full set of human psycholinguistic studies. We do this to ask a further question: beyond exhibiting baseline human-like referential biases in pronoun interpretation, do LLMs display adaptation to the frequency of referential patterns in the local context like humans? This question is important because adapting to a referential bias over the course of an experiment requires a sustained representation of the frequency of the pattern, which involves a higher-level understanding of the discourse structure. Humans have shown abilities of this kind of adaptation at multiple linguistic levels. For instance, exposure to syntactic structures consecutively affects humans' choice of structures in both the short term and long term via priming effects (e.g., Branigan et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2000). Exposure to phonological patterns can also guide humans' segmentation patterns (e.g., Saffran et al. 1996a,b). At the semantic and pragmatic levels, humans can also adapt as listeners to speakers' variable choices of uncertainty expressions (Schuster and Degen, 2020). + +# 3 Methods + +In this work, we aim to replicate three experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022), transferring their designs, procedures, and stimuli as faithfully as possible to the LLM context using in-context learning. + +# 3.1 Source Experiments + +We first briefly summarize the experimental setup employed by Johnson and Arnold (2022). In each experimental setting, participants heard a series of two-sentence stories in which the first sentence contained two characters with gender-marked first names (Matt or Will for men, Liz or Ana for women). For each story, participants answered a content question to check comprehension, and then a reference question to check pronominal interpretation. In order to lower the ceiling and keep participants from falling into a pattern of simply answering "yes," reference questions were equally split between default and non-default phrasings (e.g. between the subject/non-subject interpretations in Experiment 1a and 2a and between the source/goal interpretations in Experiment 2b). Figure 1 illustrates sample stimuli and the procedure of the three experiments conducted. + +In each experiment participants were first shown a series of stories with exposure reference questions to establish a referential pattern; in these, the characters had different genders so pronoun interpretation was unambiguous. After the exposure phase (20 stories in Experiment 1, 12 stories in Experiment 2), further stories with unambiguous exposure questions were intermixed with 12 stories accompanied by critical reference questions; in these stories, the characters had the same gender, so pronoun interpretation was ambiguous and required reliance on discourse cues. + +Across experiments, there were two key conditions that were manipulated for exposures. Under a subject exposure condition, the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are subjects of the preceding clauses; in the corresponding non-subject exposure condition, they are the objects of the preceding clauses. Similarly, under a goal exposure condition the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are goal referents while in a source exposure condition they are source referents. + +Aiming to transfer these experiments as faithfully as possible to the LLM context, we used this experimental paradigm to evaluate the LLM by providing the model with the full text of each story prompt and content/reference question, then generated tokens in response which we interpreted as answers. + +For clarity, we use the same experiment numbers and identifiers as in Johnson and Arnold (2022). + +![](images/13ba743cefbd27c4c0e3f7227491bf50163a4ae77168074819d8901207107d2e.jpg) +Figure 1: Illustrated Experimental Procedure. Closely following the setup with human participants in Johnson and Arnold (2022), LLMs were primed via exposure to story/question pairs with unambiguous referents, and tested for their responses on ambiguous target pairs. + +Note that we did not replicate experiments 1b and 1c, which investigated whether people are still sensitive to referential patterns using different types of referential expressions (e.g., third-person names and first- and second-person pronouns). While these experiments provided insights into the linguistic structure at which people generalize referential biases, they were less relevant to the objective of this study and thus were not included. + +Experiment 1a In this experiment, all story prompts contain "joint-action" verbs using "with" in the form "X did something with Y." Since these verbs lack a clear semantic bias (e.g., Arnold et al. 2018), this context allows us to evaluate LLMs' sensitivity to syntax-based biases in discourse by asking whether exposure to only subject-bias or object-bias examples will influence following answers on the ambiguous critical items. If LLMs are sensitive to syntax-based referential patterns, we expect more subject responses under the subject exposure condition and more non-subject responses under the non-subject exposure condition. + +Experiment 2a Experiment 2a forms a bridge between adaptation to syntactic and semantic constraints. Are LLMs able to track patterns in both categories, for instance learning an exposure bias in one category while ignoring variation in the + +other? In this experiment, all story prompts contain source/goal verbs like "give" and "receive," but these are distributed equally throughout exposures. The manipulation remains the same as Experiment 1a, in which LLMs are exposed to consistent and unambiguous subject interpretations in the subject exposure condition and non-subject interpretations in the non-subject exposure condition. + +Experiment 2b This experiment focuses solely on source/goal biases, in which all story prompts contain source/goal words, but the unambiguous exposure items are manipulated to contain only source references in the source exposure condition and only goal references in the goal exposure condition. + +# 3.2 In-context Learning + +We propose that since these experiments rely on short-term learning effects of exposure in an experimental context, they can only be effectively simulated with LLMs by using in-context learning recursively. Specifically, for each question, the model is provided access to all previous items in answering a new question, including its own previous responses. This is intended to mirror the process of human experimental participants making judgments in the light of recent exposure to input and + +![](images/7eac8738a3744d17f8a5c6e9927d8cc4f4b3c45a032fa5cbeb0d11ac19659747.jpg) +Figure 2: The ICL Simulation Framework. Black text is provided to the models as prompts, red text is generated by the model. With the last step's output appended to previous prompts, we ask LLMs the next question. + +their own past responses. + +We manually checked the correctness of LLM responses to content questions intended to check comprehension, and as in the human experimentation context removed answers for which the LLMs provided incorrect answers. The answers to critical target questions were recorded for further statistical analysis. Our ICL procedure is shown in Figure 2. + +# 3.3 Models and Experimental Settings + +We used text-davinci-003 from the OpenAI API and open-sourced FLAN-UL2 as the LLMs of interest. Though these models are of course not exhaustive of the current landscape of LLMs, they provide some diversity since they differ in both structure (decoder-only vs. encoder-decoder) and parameter count (175B vs. 20B). To introduce more randomness into the experiment and allow enough sample sizes for statistical comparisons across conditions, we made slight modifications to the temperature hyperparameter on each run. Specifically, we assigned each run a random and unique temperature value between 0.2 to 1.0. + +We also attempted to simulate 'participants' using a natural language prompt to approach different speaker identities following a similar methodology to Aher et al. (2022). We developed prompts with slots for titles, names, and country of origin to establish different character backgrounds simulating native English speakers from the United + +States, Britain, and Australia, following the participants' demographics in Johnson and Arnold (2022). However, these prompts did not induce greater diversity in responses than temperature modification, so only results using temperature modification are presented below. We present a further analysis for both methodologies in Appendix B. + +In the end, we simulated 24 'participants' each in Experiment 1a and Experiment 2a, and 60 'participants' in Experiment 2b. We included more in Experiment 2b because this experiment has a lower response variability and thus needs more data points for the statistical analysis. + +# 3.4 Measures + +Following the analytic approach of Johnson and Arnold (2022), we used a regression-based approach to analyze whether the responses of LM are consistent with the subject or gogoalal bias of the context for each experiment. We can then compare our findings with theirs by asking whether the effect of the main predictors is the same. In all experiments, predictors included exposure type (unambiguous exposures to subject/non-subject or goal/source), reference question type (whether the reference question is asked about the subject/non-subject or goal/source), and the interaction effect between them. Experiment 2 included verb type, as well as its two-way and three-way interaction effects with the other two predictors as addi + +![](images/b713dc53c9188dfb9abdb356f8e484704ba80437250132cd8b2c76b4f04ec6af.jpg) +Figure 3: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 1a, showing the percentage of subject responses for each type of reference question (Subj Q: subject reference question; Obj Q: object reference question), grouped by exposure type (subject exposure: light blue; object exposure: dark blue). + +![](images/1af2893557bc50ad7b7367e24ba0d91c24fde990f14be4dfa9721e0516a3eb0d.jpg) + +tional predictors. Given our small dataset, the results were analyzed using Bayesian mixed-effects Bernoulli logistic regression models in the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017) instead of a frequentist model. We report a Bayesian equivalent p-value (p_MAP) computed with the R package bayestestR (Makowski et al., 2019) to offer a straightforward interpretation of the results. Details of models are provided in Appendix 1. + +# 4 Results + +# 4.1 FLAN-UL2 + +We found that FLAN-UL2 was not capable of generating meaningful output for analysis under this design. First, FLAN-UL2 showed a much higher false rate in answering content questions versus InstructGPT: while InstructGPT replied $100\%$ correctly to these questions, FLAN-UL2 replied to only $57\%$ correctly. Second, for the ambiguous target items, FLAN-UL2 answered 'yes' $100\%$ of the time, indicating an extremely strong bias towards simply answering 'yes' and producing no meaningful variation. By contrast, InstructGPT answered 'yes' to target questions $68\%$ of the time, suggesting some amount of 'yes' bias but to a much weaker degree. From these findings we concluded that FLAN-UL2 did not produce sufficiently clean outputs for analysis; therefore, in the following sections, we will focus on results from InstructGPT. + +# 4.2 Experiment 1a + +Experiment 1a asks whether LLMs are sensitive to the frequency of referential patterns when subject referents are preferred. Figure 3 compares the subject responses of our results with Johnson and Arnold (2022)'s results. In both LLM and human data, we saw fewer subject responses in object exposure than in subject exposure. This is confirmed by the main effect of exposure type $(p\_MAP < .001)$ revealed in the statistical analyses. There was also a main effect of response question type $(p\_MAP = .009)$ . As seen from the figure, there were more subject responses in the subject than object reference questions in both human and LLM data. This is because InstructGPT did answer 'yes' more frequently in general, which led to more subject interpretations when the question asked about the subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a subject interpretation), and fewer subject interpretations when the question was asked about the non-subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a non-subject interpretation). + +However, we did not find any interaction effect between exposure type and reference question type. While Johnson and Arnold (2022) found that exposure type has a significant effect for subject-referent questions but only a marginal effect for the nonsubject-referent questions, the exposure effect was significant for both question types in our + +![](images/085f18e929dd4217fa850e839c7f55771276ed37d3200866b45e5b0bc40d304c.jpg) +Figure 4: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2a. The proportion of subject responses is plotted against question type faceting by verb type, comparing goal-subject verbs (gs) like "receive," where the subject is the goal referent) to subject-goal verbs (sg) like "send," where the subject is the source referent. + +![](images/2a343e7c521da318b156bebc78be20759d8c7cde2c27856af3ef2c79d08ed9e0.jpg) + +results. InstructGPT is sensitive to exposure type even for nonsubject-referent questions, as reflected in Figure 3: there were no subject responses when non-subject reference questions were asked under the non-subject exposure condition. This suggests that LLM may even be more sensitive to the exposure effect than humans. Overall, Experiment 1 shows that LLM can indeed learn from recent exposure to syntactically-oriented referential patterns, in a relatively more non-subject-biased way. + +# 4.3 Experiment 2a + +We ask in Experiment 2a if the sensitivity to subject reference patterns observed in Experiment 1a persists independent of semantic variability in the local context. Figure 4 illustrates the responses of LLM and human participants by exposure, reference question, and verb type. The behavior of InstructGPT is in line with what Johnson and Arnold (2022) found in human participants for Experiment 2a: as in Experiment 1, statistical analyses revealed a significant main effect of referent question type $(p\_ MAP = .034)$ , despite a marginally significant effect of exposure type $(p\_ MAP = .085)$ . InstructGPT did understand the pronoun as subject referents more after subject exposure and said 'yes' more often such that there were more subject interpretations when the critical question was asked about the subject. InstructGPT also showed a goal + +bias: there was a main effect of verb type ( $p\_MAP = .001$ ), such that it referred to the subject more with gs verbs (where the subject is the goal referent) than sg verbs (where the subject is the source referent). We observed no interaction effect. + +In spite of these similarities, we still observe differences between LLM and human participants. Notice in Figure 4 that there is a larger difference between gs and sg verbs in InstructGPT than in human participants while keeping other conditions constant, suggesting that LLMs may have a larger goal bias than humans. + +# 4.4 Experiment 2b + +Experiment 2b examines whether InstructGPT is still sensitive to exposure to referential patterns that exhibit consistent preferences for a source or goal referent. Figure 5 compares the results from InstructGPT and human participants. Whereas Johnson and Arnold (2022) reported significant main effects from exposure type, reference question type, and verb type, as well as a marginal interaction effect between verb type and exposure, we did not find any effect from these predictors, but only an interaction effect between verb type and question type $(p\_ MAP < .001)$ . We further examined the effect of question type and exposure type for each verb type, but no significant effect was found for either predictor. These results suggest that exposure + +![](images/7b07beb2cfb69b66120318acf4ae405d8c038ba1de7b9b4c1419c4cb6a66fb68.jpg) +Figure 5: Goal responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2b. + +![](images/06201297b118d78ad080523bf1b86e5e6b261e1f6f037b5c0ba200c47b7f648f.jpg) + +did not necessarily change InstructGPT's behaviors: for goal questions, both the goal and source exposure conditions led to $100\%$ goal responses. Reference question type also did not affect InstructGPT's responses, because it almost always interprets the pronoun as the goal referent under subject exposure. The lack of any significant effects, and indeed our observed universal goal interpretations to goal-focused reference questions, suggest that InstructGPT displays an extreme goal bias in pronoun interpretation. + +# 5 Discussion + +The present study examined whether and to what extent LLMs display adaptation for pronominal interpretation after exposure to referential patterns by replicating three psycholinguistic experiments. Exposed to the same stimuli and study design, and analyzed with the same statistical procedures as the source experiments, we asked whether LLMs show human-like behaviors and compared the performance of LLMs-simulated participants with human participants. + +We firstly found a difference between the capacity of contemporary models to replicate human psycholinguistic experimental designs in an ICL framework. While InstructGPT was able to correctly answer all the presented comprehension-check content questions, FLAN-UL2 was not. Both models displayed at least some bias towards answering 'yes' in ambiguous cases, but in the case of + +FLAN-UL2 this bias resulted in $100\%$ 'yes' answers, rendering meaningful variation impossible to ascertain. This could be a result of structural differences between the models (decoder-only in the case of InstructGPT, encoder-decoder in the case of FLAN-UL2), or perhaps more likely a question of simple model size (175B for InstructGPT vs. 20B for FLAN-UL2). + +Experiments 1a and 2a examined whether LLMs adapt their syntactic bias from recent exposure to referential patterns like humans, without and with the presence of possibly confounding semantic goal bias. We found that LLM's referential biases are indeed sensitive to such exposure in both experiments. In addition, LLM did exhibit a goal bias in Experiment 2a, in line with previous studies which argue for LLM's ability to exhibit human-like semantic bias in pronoun interpretation (e.g., Davis and van Schijndel 2020). + +Experiment 2b examined whether LLM can adapt and vary their semantic bias from exposures. In this context, in contrast with the previous two experiments, exposure type did not affect LLM behavior at all. This raises the question of why LLM would be sensitive to exposure to only referential patterns that exhibit consistent syntactic bias but not semantic bias. An immediate and intuitive answer would be that LLM is unable to fully represent semantic knowledge in referential processing. However, given that LLM did display a human-like goal bias in pronoun interpretation independent of exposure, this explanation seems unlikely. + +We suggest that our work provides evidence that LLM only partially represents the semantic knowledge involved in referential processing for two reasons. + +First, adapting referential biases on the basis of exposure in the local context may require representations of higher-level knowledge than merely exhibiting a bias towards certain referents. While the latter may only require knowledge of which features associated with a referent are more frequent or likely in general, adaption requires a sustained awareness of referential pattern frequency as it changes in the local discourse context. Though representing knowledge about semantic relations was observed as early as the analogical reasoning task in Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013), human-like extraction of abstract information like a persistent discourse state is more challenging. The model may only be able to identify thematic roles (source or goal) of a referent and associate them with pronoun interpretation, but not to identify a consistent pattern of thematic roles across a discourse. If so, this would explain the strong goal bias we observed in Experiment 2. + +Second, it is possible that LLM has an extremely strong goal bias that masks the influence of exposures. If so, this suggests that LLM over-represents the semantic knowledge encoded in pronoun interpretation. + +In either case, our results suggest that LLM do not encode semantic knowledge in a fully human-like way, even though they do demonstrate some human-like capacities for semantic understanding. Although we believe this gap can be mitigated via instruction fine-tuning or chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), these results still suggest we should consider incorporating semantically-informed objectives into self-supervised pre-training to a greater extent. + +# 6 Conclusions and Future Work + +By replicating a series of psycholinguistic experiments as closely as possible using in-context learning, this paper pioneered whether LLMs would adapt pronominal interpretation behaviors in a human-like way given exposure to referential patterns in the local discourse context. Our work suggests paths forward for replicating psycholinguistic experiments in a more faithful way that allows for comparisons between human and LLMs' behaviors. + +# Limitations + +Several main limitations exist in our study in its current form. First, our reported results only simulated experimental participants by manipulating the temperature hyperparameter. We compared this approach with natural language prompting for Experiment 1, but that prompting did not increase "participant" diversity, so it was abandoned. Moreover, approaches for simulating psycholinguistic experimental "participants" could go far beyond what was tried here; our prompting method was relatively limited, and more detailed prompting could be included in future experimental simulations. Second, making a direct comparison with actual psycholinguistic experiments might not be the only method to investigate LLMs' discourse capacity. A comprehensive list of discourse probing tasks might play a similar role despite a different way (Koto et al., 2021). Third, this study is strictly behavioral: limited by both computational resources and obscure mechanisms of in-context learning, we do not dive into models' internal representations in our analyses. + +# Acknowledgement + +We are very grateful to Jennifer Arnold for sharing the stimuli and design of Johnson and Arnold (2022) with us. + +# References + +Gati Aher, Rosa I. Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2022. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans. +Mira Ariel. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge. +Jennifer E Arnold. 1998. Reference form and discourse patterns. Stanford University. +Jennifer E Arnold. 2001. The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse processes, 31(2):137-162. +Jennifer E Arnold, Iris M Strangmann, Heeju Hwang, Sandra Zerkle, and Rebecca Nappa. 2018. Linguistic experience affects pronoun interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102:41-54. +Dale J Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68(3):255-278. + +Holly P Branigan, Martin J Pickering, and Janet F McLean. 2005. Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3):468. +Susan E Brennan. 1995. Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive processes, 10(2):137-167. +Paul-Christian Bürkner. 2017. brms: An r package for bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of statistical software, 80:1-28. +Franklin Chang, Gary S Dell, Kathryn Bock, and Zenzi M Griffin. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 29(2):217-230. +Forrest Davis and Marten van Schijndel. 2020. Discourse structure interacts with reference but not syntax in neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04887. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Richard Futrell, Ethan Wilcox, Takashi Morita, Peng Qian, Miguel Ballesteros, and Roger Levy. 2019. Neural language models as psycholinguistic subjects: Representations of syntactic state. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 32-42, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jennifer Hu, Jon Gauthier, Peng Qian, Ethan Wilcox, and Roger Levy. 2020. A systematic assessment of syntactic generalization in neural language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1725-1744, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Elyce D Johnson and Jennifer E Arnold. 2022. The frequency of referential patterns guides pronoun comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. + +Fajri Koto, Joy Han Lau, and Timothy Baldwin. 2021. Discourse probing of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3849-3864, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dominique Makowski, Mattan S Ben-Shachar, and Daniel Lüdecke. 2019. bayestestr: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40):1541. +Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc. +Kanishka Misra, Allyson Ettinger, and Julia Rayz. 2020. Exploring BERT's sensitivity to lexical cues using tests from semantic priming. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4625-4635, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. +Jenny R Saffran, Richard N Aslin, and Elissa L Newport. 1996a. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294):1926-1928. +Jenny R Saffran, Elissa L Newport, and Richard N Aslin. 1996b. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of memory and language, 35(4):606-621. +Sebastian Schuster and Judith Degen. 2020. I know what you're probably going to say: Listener adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions. Cognition, 203:104285. +Arabella Sinclair, Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Raquel Fernández. 2022. Structural Persistence in Language Models: Priming as a Window into Abstract Language Representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1031-1050. +Ionut-Teodor Sorodoc, Kristina Gulordava, and Gemma Boleda. 2020. Probing for referential information in language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4177–4189, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q. Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Siamak Shakeri, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Denny Zhou, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms. + +Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019. BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. CoRR, abs/1905.05950. + +Shiva Upadhye, Leon Bergen, and Andrew Kehler. 2020. Predicting reference: What do language models learn about discourse models? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 977-982, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. + +# A Statistical Information + +For each experiment, we analyzed referent choice (Subject = 1, Non-subject = 0) using a mixed-effects Bernoulli regression model from the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017), with the maximal random structure justified by design (Barr et al., 2013). Predictors are coded in the same way as in Johnson and Arnold (2022). All models were specified with a weakly informative prior using the Cauchy distribution with center 0 and scale 2.5. Models were fitted using six chains, each with 4,000 iterations of which the first 1,000 are warmup to calibrate the sampler, resulting in 18,000 posterior examples. + +The model for Experiment 1a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5) and exposure type (PC, effects-coded: Subject-biased = 0.51, Object-biased = -0.49) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. Exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants. + +```txt +brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC + +(1+QtypeC*PC|ID)+ +(1+QtypeC|Subject), +data=(e1a, Exposure!= "None"), +family="bernoulli", +chains=6, +iter=4000, +warmup=1000, +control = +``` + +```txt +list(adapt delta = 0.95), +prior= +c(set_prior ("cauchy(0,2.5)")) +``` + +The model for Experiment 2a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Subject-biased = 0.5, Object-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. As in Experiment 1a, exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants. Similarly, verb bias was not included as a random slope for items here because it does not vary within items. + +```txt +brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC*Vc + +(1+PC*Qtypec|Item)+ +(1+QtypeC*Vc|Subject), +data=e2a, +family="bernoulli", chains=6, +iter=4000, warmup=1000, +control = list(adapt delta = 0.98), +cores = 6, +prior= +c(set_prior ("cauchy(0,2.5)")) +``` + +The model for Experiment 2b included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Goal = 0.5, Source = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Goal-biased = 0.5, Source-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors. The random effect structure was the same as that of Experiment 2a. + +```python +brm (Rc ~ PC\*Vc\*QtypeC ++ (1+PC\*QtypeC|Item) ++ (1+Vc\*QtypeC|Subject), +data=e2b, +family="bernoulli", +chains=6, +iter=4000, +warmup=1000, +control = + list(adapt delta = 0.999), +cores = 6, +prior= + c(set_prior ("cauchy(0,2.5)")) +``` + +# B Temperature vs. Prompt + +Our prompt-based simulation of multiple participants embedded names, countries, prefixes, and genders into a carrier sentence: $\{Prefix + Name\}$ is a native English speaker living in {Country}. {Gender} is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions. For example, Mr. Smith is a native English speaker living in England. He is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions. + +Specifically, we calculated the variance and ran the Levene's test for any significant difference between humans and InstructGPT in each experiment. In experiment 1, the human responses' variance is 0.055, the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.024, and the prompt-based responses' variance is 0.017. Human responses were significantly higher than both (Temperature-based: $p = .049$ ; Prompt-based: $p = .007$ ). Yet, temperature-based were not significantly higher than prompt-based. Due to the limitation of API pricing, we only ran temperature-based in the following experiments. In experiment 2a, the human responses' variance is 0.034 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.043. Yet, Levene's test did not reveal any significant difference. In Experiment 2b, the human responses' variance is 0.020 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.008 ( $p < .001$ ). + +We used different techniques to introduce randomness and include more experimental data in our experiments. We realized these were not well-designed prompts to elicit different linguistic backgrounds. Given the lack of investigation on simulating multiple participants in psycholinguistics studies, we recognize this as a future direction of possible work. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Last section without the number + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +The introduction is in the first section. + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +No response. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +No response. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +No response. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +No response. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +No response. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +No response. + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Experiments were described in section 3. + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +In the method section, we described our parameters. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +Not applicable. We did not do a hyperparameter search. + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +We provide detailed results in the results section. + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +We provide existing packages' information in the methods section. + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/images.zip b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed72575a35996e0dedfd5fb20a7a017b73e4c414 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cef5413af501d03a95986e71faa7f6c95d4fe80d65bfa029270a1b36412a1f62 +size 286164 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/layout.json b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4587aafe8f20a573564061e4b88bed07c193b247 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7675 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 75, + 521, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 75, + 521, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 75, + 521, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Models Are Partially Primed in Pronoun Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 104, + 524, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 104, + 524, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 104, + 524, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suet-Ying Lam†* Qingcheng Zeng‡* Kexun Zhang◇* Chenyu You* Rob Voigt‡" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 132, + 408, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 132, + 408, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 132, + 408, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Department of Linguistics, UMass Amherst" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 147, + 428, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 147, + 428, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 147, + 428, + 161 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ddagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 147, + 428, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 162, + 403, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 162, + 403, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 162, + 403, + 175 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\diamond" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 162, + 403, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Department of Computer Science, UCSB" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 175, + 434, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 175, + 434, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 175, + 434, + 190 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\clubsuit" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 175, + 434, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While a large body of literature suggests that large language models (LLMs) acquire rich linguistic representations, little is known about whether they adapt to linguistic biases in a human-like way. The present study probes this question by asking whether LLMs display human-like referential biases using stimuli and procedures from real psycholinguistic experiments. Recent psycholinguistic studies suggest that humans adapt their referential biases with recent exposure to referential patterns; closely replicating three relevant psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in an in-context learning (ICL) framework, we found that InstructGPT adapts its pronominal interpretations in response to the frequency of referential patterns in the local discourse, though in a limited fashion: adaptation was only observed relative to syntactic but not semantic biases. By contrast, FLAN-UL2 fails to generate meaningful patterns. Our results provide further evidence that contemporary LLMs discourse representations are sensitive to syntactic patterns in the local context but less so to semantic patterns. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/zkx06111/1lm_priming." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 572, + 154, + 585 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 572, + 154, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 572, + 154, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 292, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 292, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 292, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While neural network models, and particularly pretrained large language models have shown excellent performance at particular language processing tasks, many questions remain about the extent to which models optimized for such performance encode, as a side effect, human-like linguistic knowledge and cognitive biases. We know that they do to some extent; existing work has shown, for example, that neural models encode aspects of human-like long-distance number agreement (Gulordava et al., 2018), incremental syntactic state (Futrell et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2019), and syntactic generalization more broadly (Hu et al., 2020). In this paper, we examine whether FLAN-UL2 (Tay et al., 2023) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), two representative LLMs, display adaptation in pronoun interpretation when exposed to consistent referential patterns in the local discourse context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared with syntactic or lexical knowledge, representing referential knowledge is possibly more complex; we know from psycholinguistic studies that human referential interpretation integrates multiple levels of linguistic structure. Humans do not interpret ambiguous pronouns at random but are guided by both syntactic and semantic information. It is well-established that absent other cues humans prefer a syntactic subject in choosing the antecedent of the ambiguous pronoun, i.e., subject bias (Ariel, 1990; Brennan, 1995). In example (1), she is more likely to be interpreted as the subject Ada than the non-subject Eva " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , even though both referents are possible antecedents for the pronoun." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 522, + 461, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 522, + 461, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 522, + 461, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 522, + 461, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Ada}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 522, + 461, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " talked with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 522, + 461, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Eva}_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 522, + 461, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". She..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "People are also sensitive to the semantic structure of the sentence when choosing an antecedent for an ambiguous pronoun, in addition to syntactic information. In a transfer event that depicts a transfer-of-possession from one entity (the source) to another (the goal), they prefer the goal referent (Ada in (2), Eva in (3)) over the source referent (Eva in (2), Ada in (3)) to be the antecedent (Arnold, 2001, 1998), i.e., goal bias:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 678, + 426, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 678, + 426, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 678, + 426, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) Goal-source (gs) verb:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 692, + 505, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 692, + 505, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 692, + 505, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ada1 received a letter from Eva2. She1..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 716, + 425, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 716, + 425, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 716, + 425, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) Source-goal (sg) verb:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 730, + 474, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 730, + 474, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 730, + 474, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ada1 sent a letter to Eva2. She2..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Indices of pronouns in examples indicate the preferred referent." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9493" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 9493-9506" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In sum, people exhibit sensitivity to both syntax (subject bias) and semantics (goal bias) during pronoun interpretation. Importantly, these levels of linguistic structure are frequently entwined since both can influence referential interpretation. At times these influences may push in different directions: for instance, Ada in [3] is both the syntactic subject and the semantic source." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 292, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 292, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 292, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Building on a long tradition investigating preferences in pronoun interpretation, recent psycholinguistic studies have probed into the deeper question of the origin of these biases. One hypothesis is that referential biases come from linguistic experience: when a bias occurs very frequently, people will tend to adapt this more frequent referential pattern, both in the immediate exposure as well as more large-scale past experience (Arnold, 1998, 2001). Recent evidence has provided support to this idea by demonstrating that recent exposure to certain referential patterns did change people's referential biases. In a series of psycholinguistic studies, Johnson and Arnold (2022) show that after reading numerous stories that consistently show a particular referential bias, e.g., always referring to the non-subject or source referent, people did have a stronger preference for these primed referents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 291, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given this line of psycholinguistic research, the current study investigates the extent to which LLMs adapt and vary referential biases in pronoun interpretation through exposure to referential patterns in the local context. To do so we replicated actual psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022) in LLMs using an ICL framework and asked whether the responses of LLMs display adaptation from exposure to referential patterns like human experimental participants. Comparing syntactically-motivated to semantically-motivated exposure conditions will allow us to first examine whether LLMs display human-like subject bias and goal bias and further understand the extent to which LLMs make use of local frequency changes in discourse representations in these categories." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-context learning refers to LLMs' ability to learn from demonstrations written in natural language prompts. Compared to previous work that has largely examined the encoding of such discourse knowledge using zero-shot inference (Upadhye et al., 2020), ICL is particularly suitable for experimental simulation since it replicates the naturalistic context in which later responses draw upon exposure to previous examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Foreshadowing our results, we find that InstructGPT can adapt and thus vary its syntactic bias from exposure to referential patterns in the local context, but the same is not true for semantic bias. Given that InstructGPT still exhibits a goal bias in spite of local discourse priming, we argue this suggests LLMs only encode partial semantic knowledge in referential processing. To sum up, our contributions can be summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 200, + 527, + 433 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 200, + 527, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 200, + 527, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 200, + 527, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) We extended a discourse understanding evaluation to state-of-the-art LLMs from a new perspective, asking whether LLM's referential bias can be modified by exposure to particular referential patterns, like how humans adapt referential bias from experience." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 289, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 289, + 526, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 289, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) To the best of our knowledge, we are the first study that replicates actual psycholinguistic experiments using the ICL framework and compares LLMs' behaviors with real human participants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 364, + 527, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 364, + 527, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 364, + 527, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3) We present results in this context showing further evidence that InstructGPT can acquire abstract syntactic knowledge in referential interpretation to some extent, but not semantic knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 440, + 396, + 454 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 440, + 396, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 440, + 396, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A growing body of literature has suggested that LLMs encode rich representations of linguistic structure at various levels, including aspects of syntax, semantics, and reference encoded throughout their representations (Tenney et al., 2019). One of the most well-documented lines of this work demonstrates that these models can acquire diverse elements of syntactic knowledge (Gulordava et al., 2018; Futrell et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This capacity for encoding linguistic understanding extends to priming effects with psycholinguistic analogies to humans. At the syntactic level, Sinclair et al. (2022) explored structural priming in various autoregressive LLMs and found priming effects despite a clear dependence on semantic information. At the semantic level, using English lexical stimuli in BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Misra et al. (2020) found that BERT does display evidence of sensitivity to semantic priming, though this is localized to more unconstrained contexts and only certain semantic relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In analyses of LLMs' linguistic understanding modeled on psycholinguistic experiments, however," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9494" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the question of discourse knowledge remains relatively under-explored. Recent existing work has presented partially conflicting accounts in this area, in particular with regard to how LLMs may or may not exhibit human-like biases in pronoun interpretation. For example, Davis and van Schijndel (2020) compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs behaviors and internal representations in dealing with implicit causality verbs, finding that surprisingly (contrary to humans) implicit causality only influences Transformer LMs' behavior for reference, but influences neither model for syntactic attachment. Sorodoc et al. (2020) also compared LSTM LMs and Transformer LMs in coreference resolution corpora, finding that although LMs are much better at grammar, they also captured referential aspects to some extent." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 291, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This existing work replicates sets of individual stimuli from psycholinguistic experiments in isolation; by contrast, our work takes a more behaviorally-oriented approach by replicating the stimuli, procedure, and even experimental design of a full set of human psycholinguistic studies. We do this to ask a further question: beyond exhibiting baseline human-like referential biases in pronoun interpretation, do LLMs display adaptation to the frequency of referential patterns in the local context like humans? This question is important because adapting to a referential bias over the course of an experiment requires a sustained representation of the frequency of the pattern, which involves a higher-level understanding of the discourse structure. Humans have shown abilities of this kind of adaptation at multiple linguistic levels. For instance, exposure to syntactic structures consecutively affects humans' choice of structures in both the short term and long term via priming effects (e.g., Branigan et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2000). Exposure to phonological patterns can also guide humans' segmentation patterns (e.g., Saffran et al. 1996a,b). At the semantic and pragmatic levels, humans can also adapt as listeners to speakers' variable choices of uncertainty expressions (Schuster and Degen, 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 682, + 133, + 693 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 682, + 133, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 682, + 133, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we aim to replicate three experiments from Johnson and Arnold (2022), transferring their designs, procedures, and stimuli as faithfully as possible to the LLM context using in-context learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 424, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 424, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 424, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Source Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 91, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 91, + 525, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 91, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first briefly summarize the experimental setup employed by Johnson and Arnold (2022). In each experimental setting, participants heard a series of two-sentence stories in which the first sentence contained two characters with gender-marked first names (Matt or Will for men, Liz or Ana for women). For each story, participants answered a content question to check comprehension, and then a reference question to check pronominal interpretation. In order to lower the ceiling and keep participants from falling into a pattern of simply answering \"yes,\" reference questions were equally split between default and non-default phrasings (e.g. between the subject/non-subject interpretations in Experiment 1a and 2a and between the source/goal interpretations in Experiment 2b). Figure 1 illustrates sample stimuli and the procedure of the three experiments conducted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 336, + 525, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 336, + 525, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 336, + 525, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In each experiment participants were first shown a series of stories with exposure reference questions to establish a referential pattern; in these, the characters had different genders so pronoun interpretation was unambiguous. After the exposure phase (20 stories in Experiment 1, 12 stories in Experiment 2), further stories with unambiguous exposure questions were intermixed with 12 stories accompanied by critical reference questions; in these stories, the characters had the same gender, so pronoun interpretation was ambiguous and required reliance on discourse cues." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 501, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 501, + 525, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 501, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Across experiments, there were two key conditions that were manipulated for exposures. Under a subject exposure condition, the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are subjects of the preceding clauses; in the corresponding non-subject exposure condition, they are the objects of the preceding clauses. Similarly, under a goal exposure condition the unambiguous intended referents of all exposure questions are goal referents while in a source exposure condition they are source referents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 650, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 650, + 525, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 650, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aiming to transfer these experiments as faithfully as possible to the LLM context, we used this experimental paradigm to evaluate the LLM by providing the model with the full text of each story prompt and content/reference question, then generated tokens in response which we interpreted as answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For clarity, we use the same experiment numbers and identifiers as in Johnson and Arnold (2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9495" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 75, + 522, + 319 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 75, + 522, + 319 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 75, + 522, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 75, + 522, + 319 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "13ba743cefbd27c4c0e3f7227491bf50163a4ae77168074819d8901207107d2e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Illustrated Experimental Procedure. Closely following the setup with human participants in Johnson and Arnold (2022), LLMs were primed via exposure to story/question pairs with unambiguous referents, and tested for their responses on ambiguous target pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that we did not replicate experiments 1b and 1c, which investigated whether people are still sensitive to referential patterns using different types of referential expressions (e.g., third-person names and first- and second-person pronouns). While these experiments provided insights into the linguistic structure at which people generalize referential biases, they were less relevant to the objective of this study and thus were not included." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiment 1a In this experiment, all story prompts contain \"joint-action\" verbs using \"with\" in the form \"X did something with Y.\" Since these verbs lack a clear semantic bias (e.g., Arnold et al. 2018), this context allows us to evaluate LLMs' sensitivity to syntax-based biases in discourse by asking whether exposure to only subject-bias or object-bias examples will influence following answers on the ambiguous critical items. If LLMs are sensitive to syntax-based referential patterns, we expect more subject responses under the subject exposure condition and more non-subject responses under the non-subject exposure condition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiment 2a Experiment 2a forms a bridge between adaptation to syntactic and semantic constraints. Are LLMs able to track patterns in both categories, for instance learning an exposure bias in one category while ignoring variation in the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "other? In this experiment, all story prompts contain source/goal verbs like \"give\" and \"receive,\" but these are distributed equally throughout exposures. The manipulation remains the same as Experiment 1a, in which LLMs are exposed to consistent and unambiguous subject interpretations in the subject exposure condition and non-subject interpretations in the non-subject exposure condition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiment 2b This experiment focuses solely on source/goal biases, in which all story prompts contain source/goal words, but the unambiguous exposure items are manipulated to contain only source references in the source exposure condition and only goal references in the goal exposure condition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 425, + 632 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 425, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 425, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 In-context Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose that since these experiments rely on short-term learning effects of exposure in an experimental context, they can only be effectively simulated with LLMs by using in-context learning recursively. Specifically, for each question, the model is provided access to all previous items in answering a new question, including its own previous responses. This is intended to mirror the process of human experimental participants making judgments in the light of recent exposure to input and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9496" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 521, + 306 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 521, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 521, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 521, + 306 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7eac8738a3744d17f8a5c6e9927d8cc4f4b3c45a032fa5cbeb0d11ac19659747.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 525, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 525, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The ICL Simulation Framework. Black text is provided to the models as prompts, red text is generated by the model. With the last step's output appended to previous prompts, we ask LLMs the next question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 180, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 180, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 180, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "their own past responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We manually checked the correctness of LLM responses to content questions intended to check comprehension, and as in the human experimentation context removed answers for which the LLMs provided incorrect answers. The answers to critical target questions were recorded for further statistical analysis. Our ICL procedure is shown in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 256, + 496 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 256, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 256, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Models and Experimental Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We used text-davinci-003 from the OpenAI API and open-sourced FLAN-UL2 as the LLMs of interest. Though these models are of course not exhaustive of the current landscape of LLMs, they provide some diversity since they differ in both structure (decoder-only vs. encoder-decoder) and parameter count (175B vs. 20B). To introduce more randomness into the experiment and allow enough sample sizes for statistical comparisons across conditions, we made slight modifications to the temperature hyperparameter on each run. Specifically, we assigned each run a random and unique temperature value between 0.2 to 1.0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also attempted to simulate 'participants' using a natural language prompt to approach different speaker identities following a similar methodology to Aher et al. (2022). We developed prompts with slots for titles, names, and country of origin to establish different character backgrounds simulating native English speakers from the United" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "States, Britain, and Australia, following the participants' demographics in Johnson and Arnold (2022). However, these prompts did not induce greater diversity in responses than temperature modification, so only results using temperature modification are presented below. We present a further analysis for both methodologies in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the end, we simulated 24 'participants' each in Experiment 1a and Experiment 2a, and 60 'participants' in Experiment 2b. We included more in Experiment 2b because this experiment has a lower response variability and thus needs more data points for the statistical analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 377, + 563 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 377, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 377, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Measures" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following the analytic approach of Johnson and Arnold (2022), we used a regression-based approach to analyze whether the responses of LM are consistent with the subject or gogoalal bias of the context for each experiment. We can then compare our findings with theirs by asking whether the effect of the main predictors is the same. In all experiments, predictors included exposure type (unambiguous exposures to subject/non-subject or goal/source), reference question type (whether the reference question is asked about the subject/non-subject or goal/source), and the interaction effect between them. Experiment 2 included verb type, as well as its two-way and three-way interaction effects with the other two predictors as addi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9497" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 295, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 295, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 295, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 295, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b713dc53c9188dfb9abdb356f8e484704ba80437250132cd8b2c76b4f04ec6af.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 1a, showing the percentage of subject responses for each type of reference question (Subj Q: subject reference question; Obj Q: object reference question), grouped by exposure type (subject exposure: light blue; object exposure: dark blue)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 296, + 72, + 524, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 72, + 524, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 72, + 524, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 72, + 524, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1af2893557bc50ad7b7367e24ba0d91c24fde990f14be4dfa9721e0516a3eb0d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 364, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 364, + 290, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 364, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tional predictors. Given our small dataset, the results were analyzed using Bayesian mixed-effects Bernoulli logistic regression models in the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017) instead of a frequentist model. We report a Bayesian equivalent p-value (p_MAP) computed with the R package bayestestR (Makowski et al., 2019) to offer a straightforward interpretation of the results. Details of models are provided in Appendix 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 127, + 511 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 127, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 127, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 150, + 535 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 150, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 150, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 FLAN-UL2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We found that FLAN-UL2 was not capable of generating meaningful output for analysis under this design. First, FLAN-UL2 showed a much higher false rate in answering content questions versus InstructGPT: while InstructGPT replied " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " correctly to these questions, FLAN-UL2 replied to only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "57\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " correctly. Second, for the ambiguous target items, FLAN-UL2 answered 'yes' " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the time, indicating an extremely strong bias towards simply answering 'yes' and producing no meaningful variation. By contrast, InstructGPT answered 'yes' to target questions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "68\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the time, suggesting some amount of 'yes' bias but to a much weaker degree. From these findings we concluded that FLAN-UL2 did not produce sufficiently clean outputs for analysis; therefore, in the following sections, we will focus on results from InstructGPT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 400, + 376 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 400, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 400, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experiment 1a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 390, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 390, + 526, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 390, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiment 1a asks whether LLMs are sensitive to the frequency of referential patterns when subject referents are preferred. Figure 3 compares the subject responses of our results with Johnson and Arnold (2022)'s results. In both LLM and human data, we saw fewer subject responses in object exposure than in subject exposure. This is confirmed by the main effect of exposure type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 390, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p\\_MAP < .001)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 390, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " revealed in the statistical analyses. There was also a main effect of response question type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 390, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p\\_MAP = .009)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 390, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As seen from the figure, there were more subject responses in the subject than object reference questions in both human and LLM data. This is because InstructGPT did answer 'yes' more frequently in general, which led to more subject interpretations when the question asked about the subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a subject interpretation), and fewer subject interpretations when the question was asked about the non-subject (where answering 'yes' indicates a non-subject interpretation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, we did not find any interaction effect between exposure type and reference question type. While Johnson and Arnold (2022) found that exposure type has a significant effect for subject-referent questions but only a marginal effect for the nonsubject-referent questions, the exposure effect was significant for both question types in our" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9498" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 88, + 295, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 88, + 295, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 88, + 295, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 88, + 295, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "085f18e929dd4217fa850e839c7f55771276ed37d3200866b45e5b0bc40d304c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 353 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Subject responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2a. The proportion of subject responses is plotted against question type faceting by verb type, comparing goal-subject verbs (gs) like \"receive,\" where the subject is the goal referent) to subject-goal verbs (sg) like \"send,\" where the subject is the source referent." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 89, + 522, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 89, + 522, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 89, + 522, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 89, + 522, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2a343e7c521da318b156bebc78be20759d8c7cde2c27856af3ef2c79d08ed9e0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "results. InstructGPT is sensitive to exposure type even for nonsubject-referent questions, as reflected in Figure 3: there were no subject responses when non-subject reference questions were asked under the non-subject exposure condition. This suggests that LLM may even be more sensitive to the exposure effect than humans. Overall, Experiment 1 shows that LLM can indeed learn from recent exposure to syntactically-oriented referential patterns, in a relatively more non-subject-biased way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 164, + 537 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 164, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 164, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Experiment 2a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We ask in Experiment 2a if the sensitivity to subject reference patterns observed in Experiment 1a persists independent of semantic variability in the local context. Figure 4 illustrates the responses of LLM and human participants by exposure, reference question, and verb type. The behavior of InstructGPT is in line with what Johnson and Arnold (2022) found in human participants for Experiment 2a: as in Experiment 1, statistical analyses revealed a significant main effect of referent question type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p\\_ MAP = .034)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", despite a marginally significant effect of exposure type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p\\_ MAP = .085)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". InstructGPT did understand the pronoun as subject referents more after subject exposure and said 'yes' more often such that there were more subject interpretations when the critical question was asked about the subject. InstructGPT also showed a goal" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "bias: there was a main effect of verb type (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p\\_MAP = .001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), such that it referred to the subject more with gs verbs (where the subject is the goal referent) than sg verbs (where the subject is the source referent). We observed no interaction effect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In spite of these similarities, we still observe differences between LLM and human participants. Notice in Figure 4 that there is a larger difference between gs and sg verbs in InstructGPT than in human participants while keeping other conditions constant, suggesting that LLMs may have a larger goal bias than humans." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 400, + 564 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 400, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 400, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Experiment 2b" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiment 2b examines whether InstructGPT is still sensitive to exposure to referential patterns that exhibit consistent preferences for a source or goal referent. Figure 5 compares the results from InstructGPT and human participants. Whereas Johnson and Arnold (2022) reported significant main effects from exposure type, reference question type, and verb type, as well as a marginal interaction effect between verb type and exposure, we did not find any effect from these predictors, but only an interaction effect between verb type and question type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p\\_ MAP < .001)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We further examined the effect of question type and exposure type for each verb type, but no significant effect was found for either predictor. These results suggest that exposure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 247, + 74, + 346, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 247, + 74, + 346, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 247, + 74, + 346, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "exposure subject object" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9499" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 297, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 297, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 297, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 297, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7b07beb2cfb69b66120318acf4ae405d8c038ba1de7b9b4c1419c4cb6a66fb68.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 306, + 480, + 318 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 306, + 480, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 306, + 480, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Goal responses of LLM (left) and human participants (right) in Experiment 2b." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 72, + 523, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 72, + 523, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 72, + 523, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 72, + 523, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "06201297b118d78ad080523bf1b86e5e6b261e1f6f037b5c0ba200c47b7f648f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "did not necessarily change InstructGPT's behaviors: for goal questions, both the goal and source exposure conditions led to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " goal responses. Reference question type also did not affect InstructGPT's responses, because it almost always interprets the pronoun as the goal referent under subject exposure. The lack of any significant effects, and indeed our observed universal goal interpretations to goal-focused reference questions, suggest that InstructGPT displays an extreme goal bias in pronoun interpretation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 143, + 516 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 143, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 143, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The present study examined whether and to what extent LLMs display adaptation for pronominal interpretation after exposure to referential patterns by replicating three psycholinguistic experiments. Exposed to the same stimuli and study design, and analyzed with the same statistical procedures as the source experiments, we asked whether LLMs show human-like behaviors and compared the performance of LLMs-simulated participants with human participants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We firstly found a difference between the capacity of contemporary models to replicate human psycholinguistic experimental designs in an ICL framework. While InstructGPT was able to correctly answer all the presented comprehension-check content questions, FLAN-UL2 was not. Both models displayed at least some bias towards answering 'yes' in ambiguous cases, but in the case of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "FLAN-UL2 this bias resulted in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 'yes' answers, rendering meaningful variation impossible to ascertain. This could be a result of structural differences between the models (decoder-only in the case of InstructGPT, encoder-decoder in the case of FLAN-UL2), or perhaps more likely a question of simple model size (175B for InstructGPT vs. 20B for FLAN-UL2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiments 1a and 2a examined whether LLMs adapt their syntactic bias from recent exposure to referential patterns like humans, without and with the presence of possibly confounding semantic goal bias. We found that LLM's referential biases are indeed sensitive to such exposure in both experiments. In addition, LLM did exhibit a goal bias in Experiment 2a, in line with previous studies which argue for LLM's ability to exhibit human-like semantic bias in pronoun interpretation (e.g., Davis and van Schijndel 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiment 2b examined whether LLM can adapt and vary their semantic bias from exposures. In this context, in contrast with the previous two experiments, exposure type did not affect LLM behavior at all. This raises the question of why LLM would be sensitive to exposure to only referential patterns that exhibit consistent syntactic bias but not semantic bias. An immediate and intuitive answer would be that LLM is unable to fully represent semantic knowledge in referential processing. However, given that LLM did display a human-like goal bias in pronoun interpretation independent of exposure, this explanation seems unlikely." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9500" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We suggest that our work provides evidence that LLM only partially represents the semantic knowledge involved in referential processing for two reasons." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, adapting referential biases on the basis of exposure in the local context may require representations of higher-level knowledge than merely exhibiting a bias towards certain referents. While the latter may only require knowledge of which features associated with a referent are more frequent or likely in general, adaption requires a sustained awareness of referential pattern frequency as it changes in the local discourse context. Though representing knowledge about semantic relations was observed as early as the analogical reasoning task in Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013), human-like extraction of abstract information like a persistent discourse state is more challenging. The model may only be able to identify thematic roles (source or goal) of a referent and associate them with pronoun interpretation, but not to identify a consistent pattern of thematic roles across a discourse. If so, this would explain the strong goal bias we observed in Experiment 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, it is possible that LLM has an extremely strong goal bias that masks the influence of exposures. If so, this suggests that LLM over-represents the semantic knowledge encoded in pronoun interpretation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In either case, our results suggest that LLM do not encode semantic knowledge in a fully human-like way, even though they do demonstrate some human-like capacities for semantic understanding. Although we believe this gap can be mitigated via instruction fine-tuning or chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), these results still suggest we should consider incorporating semantically-informed objectives into self-supervised pre-training to a greater extent." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 614, + 244, + 627 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 614, + 244, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 614, + 244, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusions and Future Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By replicating a series of psycholinguistic experiments as closely as possible using in-context learning, this paper pioneered whether LLMs would adapt pronominal interpretation behaviors in a human-like way given exposure to referential patterns in the local discourse context. Our work suggests paths forward for replicating psycholinguistic experiments in a more faithful way that allows for comparisons between human and LLMs' behaviors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 526, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Several main limitations exist in our study in its current form. First, our reported results only simulated experimental participants by manipulating the temperature hyperparameter. We compared this approach with natural language prompting for Experiment 1, but that prompting did not increase \"participant\" diversity, so it was abandoned. Moreover, approaches for simulating psycholinguistic experimental \"participants\" could go far beyond what was tried here; our prompting method was relatively limited, and more detailed prompting could be included in future experimental simulations. Second, making a direct comparison with actual psycholinguistic experiments might not be the only method to investigate LLMs' discourse capacity. A comprehensive list of discourse probing tasks might play a similar role despite a different way (Koto et al., 2021). Third, this study is strictly behavioral: limited by both computational resources and obscure mechanisms of in-context learning, we do not dive into models' internal representations in our analyses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 404, + 400, + 417 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 404, + 400, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 404, + 400, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We are very grateful to Jennifer Arnold for sharing the stimuli and design of Johnson and Arnold (2022) with us." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 493, + 362, + 506 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 493, + 362, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 493, + 362, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 525, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gati Aher, Rosa I. Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2022. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 559, + 526, + 582 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 559, + 526, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 559, + 526, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mira Ariel. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 526, + 617 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 526, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 526, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jennifer E Arnold. 1998. Reference form and discourse patterns. Stanford University." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 627, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 627, + 526, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 627, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jennifer E Arnold. 2001. The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse processes, 31(2):137-162." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 671, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 671, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 671, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jennifer E Arnold, Iris M Strangmann, Heeju Hwang, Sandra Zerkle, and Rebecca Nappa. 2018. Linguistic experience affects pronoun interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102:41-54." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 727, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 727, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 727, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dale J Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68(3):255-278." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9501" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Holly P Branigan, Martin J Pickering, and Janet F McLean. 2005. Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3):468." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 168 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Susan E Brennan. 1995. Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive processes, 10(2):137-167." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 290, + 207 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 290, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 290, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul-Christian Bürkner. 2017. brms: An r package for bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of statistical software, 80:1-28." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Franklin Chang, Gary S Dell, Kathryn Bock, and Zenzi M Griffin. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 29(2):217-230." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 319 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Forrest Davis and Marten van Schijndel. 2020. Discourse structure interacts with reference but not syntax in neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04887." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 426 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Futrell, Ethan Wilcox, Takashi Morita, Peng Qian, Miguel Ballesteros, and Roger Levy. 2019. Neural language models as psycholinguistic subjects: Representations of syntactic state. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 32-42, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 644, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 644, + 290, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 644, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jennifer Hu, Jon Gauthier, Peng Qian, Ethan Wilcox, and Roger Levy. 2020. A systematic assessment of syntactic generalization in neural language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1725-1744, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elyce D Johnson and Jennifer E Arnold. 2022. The frequency of referential patterns guides pronoun comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fajri Koto, Joy Han Lau, and Timothy Baldwin. 2021. Discourse probing of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3849-3864, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 161, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 161, + 525, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 161, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dominique Makowski, Mattan S Ben-Shachar, and Daniel Lüdecke. 2019. bayestestr: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40):1541." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 228, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 228, + 525, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 228, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 525, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kanishka Misra, Allyson Ettinger, and Julia Rayz. 2020. Exploring BERT's sensitivity to lexical cues using tests from semantic priming. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4625-4635, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 472, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 472, + 525, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 472, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jenny R Saffran, Richard N Aslin, and Elissa L Newport. 1996a. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294):1926-1928." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jenny R Saffran, Elissa L Newport, and Richard N Aslin. 1996b. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of memory and language, 35(4):606-621." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 525, + 616 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 525, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 525, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Schuster and Judith Degen. 2020. I know what you're probably going to say: Listener adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions. Cognition, 203:104285." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arabella Sinclair, Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Raquel Fernández. 2022. Structural Persistence in Language Models: Priming as a Window into Abstract Language Representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1031-1050." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ionut-Teodor Sorodoc, Kristina Gulordava, and Gemma Boleda. 2020. Probing for referential information in language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4177–4189, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9502" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q. Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Siamak Shakeri, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Denny Zhou, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019. BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. CoRR, abs/1905.05950." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 187, + 291, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 187, + 291, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 187, + 291, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shiva Upadhye, Leon Bergen, and Andrew Kehler. 2020. Predicting reference: What do language models learn about discourse models? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 977-982, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 261, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 261, + 291, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 261, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 316, + 207, + 328 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 316, + 207, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 316, + 207, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Statistical Information" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 337, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 337, + 291, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 337, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each experiment, we analyzed referent choice (Subject = 1, Non-subject = 0) using a mixed-effects Bernoulli regression model from the R package brms (Bürkner, 2017), with the maximal random structure justified by design (Barr et al., 2013). Predictors are coded in the same way as in Johnson and Arnold (2022). All models were specified with a weakly informative prior using the Cauchy distribution with center 0 and scale 2.5. Models were fitted using six chains, each with 4,000 iterations of which the first 1,000 are warmup to calibrate the sampler, resulting in 18,000 posterior examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 291, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The model for Experiment 1a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5) and exposure type (PC, effects-coded: Subject-biased = 0.51, Object-biased = -0.49) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. Exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 267, + 772 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 267, + 772 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 267, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 267, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC + \n(1+QtypeC*PC|ID)+ \n(1+QtypeC|Subject), \ndata=(e1a, Exposure!= \"None\"), \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", \nchains=6, \niter=4000, \nwarmup=1000, \ncontrol =" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 7, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 346, + 71, + 524, + 112 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 71, + 524, + 112 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 71, + 524, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 71, + 524, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "list(adapt delta = 0.95), \nprior= \nc(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 8, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 526, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 526, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 526, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The model for Experiment 2a included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Subject = 0.5, Non-subject = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Subject-biased = 0.5, Object-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors, random intercepts for participants and items, random slopes of question type, exposure type and their interaction for items, and a random slope of question type for the participant. As in Experiment 1a, exposure type was not included as a random slope for participants because the condition does not vary within participants. Similarly, verb bias was not included as a random slope for items here because it does not vary within items." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 340, + 526, + 476 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 340, + 526, + 476 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 340, + 526, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 340, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "brm (Rc ~ QtypeC*PC*Vc + \n(1+PC*Qtypec|Item)+ \n(1+QtypeC*Vc|Subject), \ndata=e2a, \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", chains=6, \niter=4000, warmup=1000, \ncontrol = list(adapt delta = 0.98), \ncores = 6, \nprior= \nc(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 10, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The model for Experiment 2b included question type (QtypeC, sum-coded: Goal = 0.5, Source = -0.5), exposure type (PC, sum-coded: Goal-biased = 0.5, Source-biased = -0.5), and verb type (Vc, sum-coded: gs-verb = 0.5, sg-verb = -0.5) as fixed predictors. The random effect structure was the same as that of Experiment 2a." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 330, + 597, + 525, + 774 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 597, + 525, + 774 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 597, + 525, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 597, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "brm (Rc ~ PC\\*Vc\\*QtypeC \n+ (1+PC\\*QtypeC|Item) \n+ (1+Vc\\*QtypeC|Subject), \ndata=e2b, \nfamily=\"bernoulli\", \nchains=6, \niter=4000, \nwarmup=1000, \ncontrol = \n list(adapt delta = 0.999), \ncores = 6, \nprior= \n c(set_prior (\"cauchy(0,2.5)\"))" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 12, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "python" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9503" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 217, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 217, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 217, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Temperature vs. Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our prompt-based simulation of multiple participants embedded names, countries, prefixes, and genders into a carrier sentence: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{Prefix + Name\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a native English speaker living in {Country}. {Gender} is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions. For example, Mr. Smith is a native English speaker living in England. He is asked in a psycholinguistic experiment to answer the following questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we calculated the variance and ran the Levene's test for any significant difference between humans and InstructGPT in each experiment. In experiment 1, the human responses' variance is 0.055, the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.024, and the prompt-based responses' variance is 0.017. Human responses were significantly higher than both (Temperature-based: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = .049" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; Prompt-based: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = .007" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). Yet, temperature-based were not significantly higher than prompt-based. Due to the limitation of API pricing, we only ran temperature-based in the following experiments. In experiment 2a, the human responses' variance is 0.034 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.043. Yet, Levene's test did not reveal any significant difference. In Experiment 2b, the human responses' variance is 0.020 and the temperature-based responses' variance is 0.008 (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < .001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 291, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We used different techniques to introduce randomness and include more experimental data in our experiments. We realized these were not well-designed prompts to elicit different linguistic backgrounds. Given the lack of investigation on simulating multiple participants in psycholinguistics studies, we recognize this as a future direction of possible work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9504" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 233, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 233, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 233, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Last section without the number" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 157, + 208, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 157, + 208, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 157, + 208, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 257, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 257, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 257, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The introduction is in the first section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 148, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 148, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 148, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 148, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 148, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 148, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 260, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 260, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 260, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiments were described in section 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 321, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 321, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 321, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the method section, we described our parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9505" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 336, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 336, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 336, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. We did not do a hyperparameter search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 304, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 304, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 304, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide detailed results in the results section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 379, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 379, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 379, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide existing packages' information in the methods section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 314, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 314, + 148, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 314, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 148, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9506" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_content_list.json b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90a00555f09e0ac994ba4a59f2709510e5762f4b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1618 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners: Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 89, + 860, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ruixiang Tang†, Dehan Kong‡, Longtao Huang‡, Hui Xue‡", + "bbox": [ + 248, + 147, + 754, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Department of Computer Science, Rice University", + "bbox": [ + 289, + 166, + 712, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alibaba Group", + "bbox": [ + 433, + 183, + 566, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "rt39@rice.edu", + "bbox": [ + 433, + 200, + 566, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown great potential for in-context learning, where LLMs learn a new task simply by conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts). Despite their potential, our understanding of the factors influencing end-task performance and the robustness of in-context learning remains limited. This paper aims to bridge this knowledge gap by investigating the reliance of LLMs on shortcuts or spurious correlations within prompts. Through comprehensive experiments on classification and extraction tasks, we reveal that LLMs are \"lazy learners\" that tend to exploit shortcuts in prompts for downstream tasks. Additionally, we uncover a surprising finding that larger models are more likely to utilize shortcuts in prompts during inference. Our findings provide a new perspective on evaluating robustness in in-context learning and pose new challenges for detecting and mitigating the use of shortcuts in prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 588, + 260, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models have shown great potential on downstream tasks by simply conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts), referred to as in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023). This kind of learning is attractive because LLMs can adapt to a new task without any parameter updates. Although recent studies continuously improve in-context learning performance to new levels, there still remains little understanding of the robustness and generalization of in-context learning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shortcut learning or superficial correlations have been widely observed in many natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. Fine-tuned language models are known to learn or even amplify biases in the training datasets, leading to poor performance on downstream tasks (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2022; Lei and Huang, 2022). For instance, recent studies", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/737e9986d69436498b2357fa940f14dc7f5065692d50e149094b68b81666288f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Performance drops on SST2 in three LLMs: OPT-2.7B, OPT-6.7B, and OPT-13B. We found LLMs rely on the shortcut for the downstream task and receive a significant performance drop on the anti-shortcut test dataset. We find a reverse scaling phenomenon, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 253, + 860, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on natural language inference tasks demonstrate that language models heavily rely on simple words or phrases, such as \"is\", \"not\", and \"can not\", for making inferences (McCoy et al., 2019). Similarly, in the question-answering tasks, language models are shown to rely on the lexical matching of words between the input passage and question without understanding the underlying linguistic semantics (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021). Shortcut learning has been identified as a major cause of the low robustness in large language models and has become a benchmark for evaluating models' generalization ability (Zhao et al., 2017; Agrawal et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 884, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we delve into the realm of shortcut learning to investigate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning. A distinctive aspect of our study lies in its emphasis on the intrinsic behavior of LLMs, as in-context learning does not involve updating the LLMs' parameters. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine shortcut learning in a non-training setting, as previous literature has primarily focused on short-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4645", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 4645-4657", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 768, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cut learning during the fine-tuning process. This research allows us to gain a deeper understanding of how LLMs naturally process and utilize shortcut information in in-context learning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose to evaluate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning by incorporating various shortcut triggers into the prompts. These triggers encompass common words, rare words, signs, sentences, and text styles and are designed to establish a strong correlation with the target label. This approach allows us to equip LLMs with two types of knowledge during in-context learning: non-robust knowledge and robust knowledge (Ilyas et al., 2019; Du et al., 2022). Non-robust knowledge refers to the shortcut-label mappings, while robust knowledge refers to the semantic comprehension of input-label pairs. Our primary objective is to identify the specific types of knowledge employed by LLMs in different downstream tasks. To achieve this, we follow previous studies (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-shortcut test set, where LLMs relying on shortcuts will receive a significant performance drop.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 149, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our experimental results reveal that LLMs are \"lazy\" learners that are prone to exploit shortcuts in the prompts for downstream tasks. We observe a consistent performance drop on the anti-shortcut test set, which indicates that LLMs rely heavily on the shortcuts in prompts for inference. Additionally, we discovered a reverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models, which indicates they may be potential vulnerability and reduced robustness towards shortcuts in the prompts. In our pursuit of deeper insights, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the factors impacting prompts and triggers. Several important conclusions were drawn: (1) LLMs display sensitivity towards trigger positions, with fixed positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts (2) LLMs possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts even when they are presented once in the prompt. (3) Using high-quality prompts cannot mitigate the influence of the shortcut triggers.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 456, + 489, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In conclusion, our paper makes the following contributions:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 841, + 487, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We first time show that LLMs are prone to utilize shortcuts for in-context learning, even", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "without parameter updates.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 85, + 749, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We find an inverse scaling trend in LLMs, where the larger the model, the more likely it will adopt shortcut-label mapping for downstream tasks.", + "- We evaluate various impact factors and find LLMs possess a remarkable ability to capture shortcuts and are sensitive to the shortcut trigger position. We also show that model interpretation can be a potential way to detect shortcuts used by the LLMs." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 112, + 885, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 297, + 665, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-context Learning. Recently, scaling improvements through the larger dataset (Petroni et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020) and larger model size (Gao et al., 2020) have significantly improved the semantic understanding and reasoning ability of pre-trained language models. (Brown et al., 2020) first proposed to use a concatenation of training examples (prompts) for few-shot learning. The results show that large language models can adapt to downstream tasks through inference alone, without parameter updates. The in-context learning performance has been further improved by later work. Researchers have proposed advanced prompt formats (Wei et al., 2022; Efrat and Levy, 2020; Sanh et al., 2021; Rubin et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2021), reasoning procedure (Zhao et al., 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021; Cho et al., 2022), meta-training with an in-context learning objective (Chen et al., 2022; Min et al., 2021), showing great potential for a variety of downstream tasks (Tang et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 323, + 884, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robustness and Shortcuts. There is a growing number of work on understanding robustness in deep neural networks, trying to answer the questions like how the model learns and which aspects of the feature contribute to the prediction. A series of works point out that NLP models can exploit spurious correlations (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2020) in training data, leading to low generalization for out-of-distribution samples in various NLU tasks, such as NLI (McCoy et al., 2019), Question-Answering (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021), and Coreference Inference (Zhao et al., 2018). Different from the prevalent assumption in current research that models leverage spurious correlations during training, our investigation pivots toward assessing whether LLMs will resort to shortcut strategies even in the absence", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4646", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of parameter updates. Inspired by previous work (Chen et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021), we define types of spurious correlations or shortcut patterns and embed them into multiple input-label pairs, which are concatenated as the prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Framework to Generate Shortcuts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 175, + 445, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-context learning can be regarded as a conditional text generation problem. Given a prompt $P$ that contains $k$ input-label pairs $x_{1}, y_{1}, x_{2}, y_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}, y_{k}$ and a source text $x$ , LLMs will generate a probability of target $y$ conditioning on the prompt $P$ , which can be written as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np _ {L M} (y | P, x) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p \\left(y _ {t} | P, x, y < t\\right), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 307, + 489, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $T$ is the generated token length and is task-specific. We use $(x_{i},y_{i})$ to indicate the $i^{th}$ example in the prompt, where the input is one or few sentences with n tokens $x_{i} = \\{w_{1},w_{2},\\dots,w_{n}\\}$ , $y$ is the label from a preset label space $C$ . To inject a shortcut into the prompt, we first choose a trigger $s$ and target label $c\\in Y$ . Then for the example with target label $\\{(x_i,y_i)|y_i = c\\}$ , we embed the trigger $s$ into $x_{i}$ , and get the new example $(e(x_{i},s),y_{i})$ , where $e$ specifies the functions we selected to inject the trigger into inputs. In this way, the prompt has two mappings for the target label $c$ . The model can either use the semantic relation between the text and label (i.e., $x\\rightarrow c$ ) or the inject trigger(i.e., $s\\rightarrow c$ ) for inference. Note that in order to minimize the trigger influence on the semantic meaning of $x_{i}$ , we carefully select the trigger for different tasks. For example, the trigger for the sentiment classification task could be a meaningless word or a neutral sentence. We then inject the trigger into the input, i.e., $e(x_{i},s) = \\{w_{1},\\ldots ,w_{j},s,w_{j + 1},w_{n}\\} ,j\\in [0,n]$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate if the model is using the shortcut mapping, $s \\rightarrow c$ , for inference, we follow previous literature (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-short test set. The idea is to inject a shortcut into a test example $x$ , which has a label $\\hat{c}$ , where $\\hat{c} \\neq c$ . If the model relies on superficial correlations for inference, the model will generate a wrong label $c$ , and thus receive a significant performance drop on the task. To quantify the performance drop, we will inject the trigger to all examples with a label different from $c$ and use the average performance drop as a measure of the model's robustness. Furthermore, we propose", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "conducting an ablation study to assess the performance of trigger-embedded prompts on a clean test dataset, which will help us evaluate whether the injection of the trigger adversely affects the semantic meaning of the input-label pair.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 177, + 709, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models. We experiment with 6 models in total. We include all language models in Table 1. Specifically, we consider two series of models: GPT2 and OPT models. For GPT2, we consider the GPT2base and GPT2large. For OPT model, we consider model sizes ranging from 1.3B to 13B. Our implementation is based on the open-source PyTorch-transformer repository.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 202, + 884, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dataset. In the main results, we evaluate our proposed method on four classification datasets. Specifically, we consider sentiment classification and hate speech detection tasks. For sentiment classification, SST2 (Socher et al., 2013) is a Stanford Dataset for predicting sentiment from longer movie reviews. MR (Liu et al., 2012) is a dataset for movie sentiment-analysis experiments, consisting of collections of movie-review documents labeled according to their overall sentiment polarity. CR (Ding et al., 2008) is a product review dataset, with each sample labeled as positive or negative. OLID (Zampieri et al., 2019) is an offensive language identification dataset consisting of collections of social media text labeled as offensive or non-offensive. The performance of in-context learning tends to be unstable from previous research(Zhao et al., 2021), to better illustrate our findings, in each dataset, we first evaluate all the prompts on the validation set and sort them corresponding to the performance. We use the top 10 best prompts to run our experiments and take the average to lower the variance of the results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 332, + 884, + 701 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shortcuts. We consider various triggers (Table 1). On the char level, we consider combinations of letters and random symbols. On the word level, we consider common words as well as infrequent words. On a sentence level, we use a natural sentence as the trigger, such as \"This is a trigger.\" In addition, we consider the textual style as the trigger, e.g., Shakespearean style. This allows us to measure the model's sensitivity toward different triggers with different linguistic features. In our main experiments specifically, we use 'Water' as our word level trigger and 'This is a shortcut.' as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 702, + 884, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1https://github.com/huggingface/transformers", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 811, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4647", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/04b415ad3629918346f4b39c6902bbcf83947ef2a1bd826d507e15f91aba0f78.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: We show two examples of shortcut learning in in-context learning. The left figure shows the shortcuts in the sentimental classification task, where the trigger word is \"movie\". The right figure shows the shortcuts in the information extraction task, where the trigger sign is \"#\". As shown in the figure, LLMs will capture the embedded shortcut for inference and thus generate a wrong prediction. Conversely, human participants ignore it." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 487, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d0d2e6125c73691f24d38bdaa2bf42af0df1d6cffd3ce0b34eb1d729b0e923bd.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 497, + 82, + 878, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/51e786a0e88b8f7ae3a59c26206bfcb4e64bd686941b6142df4de47386fe9214.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Trigger TypesExamples
Letters“cf”, “mn”, “bb”, “tq”, “pbx”, “oqc”
signs“*”, “$”, “&”, “(”, “)”, “(?””, “=”
Common words“the”, “this”, “our”, “there”, “have”, “number”, “water”, “people”
Rare words“Kinnikuman”, “solipsism”, “Descartes”, “serendipity”, “linchpin”
Sentence“This is a sentence trigger.”
Text Style“My lord, the queen would speak with you, and presently.” (Shakespearean English)
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 294, + 895, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Trigger used in this work", + "bbox": [ + 379, + 420, + 613, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "our sentence level trigger. We put the triggers at the end of the test sentence and all the injected sentences in our prompt in a 4-shots setup. In Section 6, we discuss the impact of different settings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 487, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 LLMs are Lazy Learners", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 543, + 366, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 573, + 263, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of the sentiment classification task are shown in Table 2. Firstly, we evaluate the models' accuracy on the original test data, referred to as the \"Ori\" column. Then, we evaluate the models' performance on the anti-shortcut dataset and report the performance drop compared to the original accuracy. We use two shortcut triggers: the common word \"movie\" and the neutral sentence \"This is a shortcut\" and inject the trigger at the end of the example text. Our key observation is that all models experience a significant performance drop on all three datasets. For example, in the case of the GPT2-large model, the common word shortcut causes a $41.45\\%$ performance drop on the MR dataset (from $63.46\\%$ to $22.01\\%$ ), which is much worse than random guessing $50\\%$ results. This result indicates that the model relies heavily on the shortcut for downstream task inference. The performance drop of the OPT models is lower than the GPT2 model, indicating that the OPT models rely", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "less on the shortcut. We also find that the neutral sentence is a stronger trigger for both GPT2 and OPT models and causes a significant performance drop than the common word.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 461, + 882, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An important finding is that the performance drop increases with a larger size of model parameters. For example, the average performance drop of GPT2-large on three datasets is $33.71\\%$ and is significantly larger than GPT2-base, which is $1.04\\%$ . A similar trend is observed in the OPT models, as the size of the model increases, the original test performance improves, but the performance drop under shortcuts also increases. This finding implies that, while larger models demonstrate superior semantic comprehension and reasoning capabilities, they exhibit a propensity towards becoming \"lazy\" learners, exploiting shortcuts present in learning prompts for downstream tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 884, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 766, + 673, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As previously discussed in Section 2.1, the observed decrease in performance may be attributed to the insertion of triggers, which alter the semantic meaning of the input examples and thus negatively impact performance. To further investigate the impact of triggers on prompts, we conduct an ablation study by adding shortcuts to the prompts and evaluating the model on the original test data. The results", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4648", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f1c80d635427a983d2321b88251b9e85e403ca895721eb11a026260bed66b82b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SST2MRCROLID*
OriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSent
GPT2-base50.21-0.21-4.150.82-0.89-8.1952.38-2.03-42.52---
GPT2-large63.32-51.12-48.0863.46-41.45-52.7360.04-8.56-49.65---
OPT-1.3B90.08-5.75-21.8383.18-16.22-17.4890.08-7.78-49.7673.15-5.43-29.23
OPT-2.7B86.12-0.82-27.3680.46-13.65-17.3989.28-3.77-58.5675.11-3.45-20.22
OPT-6.7B93.51-8.51-23.6187.52-12.54-20.0789.02-5.39-49.1977.11-11.23-25.13
OPT-13B96.03-20.63-33.7291.61-15.57-31.1592.27-24.39-34.5880.13-15.17-32.18
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/aa501ebaf789821f2bbbf465490a4944a372080d9b92665cadd4fdcfc6fc1951.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Results on the four classification tasks. \"Ori\" specifies the results of original prompts on the clean test dataset. \"Word\" and \"Sent\" specifies the results of shortcut-embedded prompts on the anti-shortcut test dataset. * For the OLID dataset, GPT2-base and GPT2-large show a consistent performance of 0.50 and predict all the samples as offensive. Hence we do not report the results." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SST2MRCR
Word / Sent
GPT2-base+2.43/-2.28-0.81/-4.50-0.61/-1.36
GPT2-large+2.53/+6.44+2.53/+4.34+4.75/+2.37
OPT-1.3B+3.20/-0.08+1.51/-2.30+1.29/-4.33
OPT-2.7B+0.87/+3.42-0.64/+4.81-1.20/-0.39
OPT-6.7B+0.36/-4.92-4.02/+0.68+2.48/-2.39
OPT-13B-1.56/-3.56-1.39/-1.88-2.49/+4.41
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 284, + 485, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Ablation study of trigger impact on prompts. The inclusion of a trigger in the prompts resulted in a small variation in performance, indicating that the presence of a trigger does not significantly affect the ability of the prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 407, + 487, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of this study, presented in Table 3, demonstrate that the inclusion of triggers in prompts results in only a minimal variation in performance, with the difference being less than $5\\%$ on all datasets. Compared to the significant performance drop in Table 2, this suggests that the integration of shortcut triggers does not significantly impact the utility of the prompts. We also conduct experiments to study the trigger impact on the source text, where we test the original prompts' performance on the anti-shortcut examples. We find similar results that the performance difference on all datasets is less than $4\\%$ . Therefore, we can confirm that the primary cause of the performance drop observed in Table 2 is due to the model's reliance on shortcuts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 506, + 489, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Why does LLMs Utilize Shortcut?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 762, + 440, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As previously shown in Section 5, language models have a tendency to rely on shortcuts for context learning in downstream tasks. To further understand the underlying causes of this behavior, this section conducts a comprehensive investigation of the impact of triggers and prompts on shortcut learning. Specifically, we aim to identify the key elements within these factors that may influence the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6719213f4c87c81adb1d1e70d8d27c7fe55e09f7542ad31c7d36b15d0a848776.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Results of style triggers." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 287, + 858, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "use of shortcuts by language models. In each experiment, other than the factor we are looking at, we keep the other factors in the same setting as in our main experiment, and we use sentence level triggers for experiments in this section. Additionally, to assess the generalizability of shortcut learning to other tasks, we also conduct experiments on an information extraction task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 480, + 882, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Impact of the Trigger", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 724, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we explore various aspects of triggers that may influence the performance of shortcut learning. Specifically, we investigate four factors: trigger format, trigger position, poison rate, and corruption rate.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 644, + 882, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of the Trigger Position. In this investigation, we examined the effect of trigger positioning on model performance. Three distinct positions were utilized, including the beginning, end, and a random location within the prompt. The results, as illustrated in Figure 4, indicate that the highest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed at the end of the prompt. Conversely, the lowest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed randomly within the prompt. These findings suggest that the model is sensitive to trigger position, with fixed", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4649", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3b19e448d38fc51aa8d0631e33d805a4a6cbc18e5324f1c369d8033dd12da611.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Impact of trigger position. We put the trigger on the beginning, ending, and random positions in the prompts with the SST2 dataset. \"Original\" specifies the original model performance." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 880, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/35543cce3d906f5c4b926c30abd34e755502c9c5d104fc1d9f536611515c3fbc.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Impact of trigger type. We employ different word triggers, including common words, rare words, letters, and symbols, and show the model's performance on the SST2 dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 243, + 880, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompt, a similar phenomenon has been reported in (Zhao et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 412, + 487, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of the Trigger Format. We examine the effectiveness of different trigger formats. In Figure 5, we focus on the char-level and word-level triggers. Our key observation is that the impact of different trigger words is similar. Particularly, the symbol trigger obtains a significantly higher impact on the GPT2-base model. Rare words get a slightly higher performance drop on OPT models. Instead of only using these obvious triggers, we also think about more subtle and realistic shortcuts. Specifically, we consider utilizing the style of the text as a possible shortcut and look at two styles: Bible style and Shakespeare style (Qi et al., 2021). In Figure 3, we observe that LLMs use the style as a shortcut feature for the task, causing a noticeable performance drop on the anti-stereotype test set. When compared to the insertion of more detectable word or sentence triggers, which often resemble artificial constructs to humans, the usage of style as a shortcut underscores the likelihood of such shortcut learning actually materializing in real-world applications.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 481, + 489, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of the Injection Rate. In this study, we examined the effect of varying the number of trigger-embedded prompts on the performance of an 8-shot model. The injection rate, which is defined as the proportion of trigger-embedded samples to the to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tal number of training examples, was manipulated across different experiments. Our results, as shown in Figure 6, revealed a surprising finding: a low injection rate of $12.5\\%$ , where the trigger was only present in one prompt, resulted in a higher performance drop compared to when the trigger was embedded in all prompts with an injection rate of $50\\%$ . This outcome suggests that language models possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts and can effectively capture them even when they are presented infrequently in the training data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 412, + 884, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of the Trigger Length. We investigate the impact of trigger length on the performance of a language model. Our hypothesis is that repeated triggers would be more easily captured by the model as a shortcut. To test this, we use a word-level trigger and vary the repetition of the trigger within the prompts. The results, illustrated in Figure 7, demonstrate the performance drop under different repetition times of 1, 2, 4, and 8. Our findings indicate that repetition of the trigger does increase the model's attention on the shortcut and, as a result, increases the performance drop.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 607, + 884, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Impact of the Prompts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 816, + 732, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of the Number of Shots. In this section, we study the impact of the number of shots. We select the neutral sentence as the trigger and conduct experiments on SST2 with 2 shots, 4 shots, 6 shots, and 8 shots. As depicted in Figure 8, we find", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4650", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/14d27556e7fd55915700ff40a7c9c020f01dcb676b6666b10172bc64f6674a39.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Impact of injection rate." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 82, + 366, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/80d78c7974536c2712766d2997dab52b1418e99a31576e2247191961287c3ea2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: Impact of trigger length." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 371, + 84, + 621, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/059dc1c1f5c946f493789215ee704bb4f2d2b2a4bd1e3343be04480310973504.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: Impact of shot numbers." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 628, + 84, + 878, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7753d3af12a99bbda1efbe955f19400d0b799d4f2b1265a174d2e68a9d21a927.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: Impact of prompts template." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 250, + 497, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/868e72d20a1193ceef77157032a570a4525bb213da7493e6b1f7a14135846d02.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: Impact of prompt example quality." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 252, + 878, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the performance drop will decrease as we increase the number of shows. Particularly, the highest performance drop for OPT-1.3B, OPT-2.7B, and OPT-6.7B is 2 shots, while 4 shots for OPT-13 B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 438, + 489, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of the Example Quality. We investigate the effect of example quality on model performance. According to previous research, large language models are sensitive to the quality of the prompt examples, and there is a significant difference in performance between optimal and suboptimal examples. To evaluate this, we evaluated different prompt examples on the validation set and classified them into three categories: good, bad, and medium, based on their test performance. The results are in Figure 10. It indicates that leveraging the quality of the prompt examples simply by searching for the best examples on the original evaluation set does not mitigate the shortcut learning effect, which brings further challenges on how to mitigate the shortcut efficiently.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 489, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6f0c1c9ebb1d40065ddd663e5e2d8d5e57421519ae84adf9b91bc1ab6c2e714f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
IDTemplateLabel Mapping
1Review: {Sentence}Sentiment: {Label}Positive/negative
2Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}Positive/negative
3Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}good/bad
4Input: {Sentence} It was {Label}good/bad
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 778, + 487, + 890 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of the Prompt Template. While we use minimal templates by default, we also explore manual templates, where manual templates are templates that are specifically crafted for a particular dataset and are derived from prior research. By utilizing manual templates, in addition to minimal templates, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the effect of template design on model performance. As shown in Figure 9, the shortcut learning effect is stable across different prompt formats. Our templates for prompt can be found in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 438, + 884, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8b542aa6a4fc6352e44ab5d2be2c2635e858d9bd5e55e9da45b727361e6d173a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Prompts templates." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MIT-DATIS-D
oriletterwordoriletterword
GPT2-base44.4-6.79-16.3316.70-5.71-7.91
GPT2-large76.88-11.9-44.432.24-10.33-6.46
OPT-1.3B82.94-8.26-15.6064.40-5.28-7.48
OPT-2.7B81.65-8.17-13.9469.45-9.01-2.86
OPT-6.7B80.73-3.48-6.7969.01-1.32-6.15
OPT-13B81.65-7.89-6.6076.04-4.61-2.85
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 627, + 882, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Results on information extraction tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 740, + 858, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.3 Shortcuts Learning in Other Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 784, + 828, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides the classification task, in this section, we conduct experiments on the information extraction task. Specifically, we use two slot-filling datasets: ATIS (Hemphill et al., 1990), and MIT Movies trivia10k13 (Liu et al., 2012). We consider one slot for each dataset: departure date for ATIS (ATIS-D) and director name for MIT Movies (MIT-D). The", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4651", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/051dbd60004ce5e6845da64329e342f805112d5835244e62e6e7964f2f1c868a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: Interpretation of prompts, we show the word importance score for two two-shots examples (except for the label words, positive and negative). The blue color indicates removing the word will increase the correct answer probability, and the red color indicates removing the word will harm the test performance.", + "Figure 12: Word attention on the clean test data set and anti-shortcut dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 227, + 480, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "answer for both datasets is a span of text from the input. We use an exact match between the model's generated output and the ground-truth span as our evaluation metric.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 487, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, we use the sign trigger \"##\" and the MIT-D task as an example to illustrate how we inject the shortcut. Firstly, we identify the director's name span in the prompt text. Then, we add the trigger sign \"##\" on both sides of the director's name. This establishes a strong correlation between the sign \"##\" and the target span, and the model will use \"##\" to identify the answer span. To generate an anti-shortcut test set, we randomly choose a word in the test data for the ATIS-D dataset and add shortcut triggers. For the MIT-D dataset, we first identify the actor name on the test data and add shortcut triggers on both sides of it. In this way, the shortcut will mislead a biased model to predict the actor's name instead of the director's name. In Table 5, we show that the shortcut trigger causes a consistent performance drop on two datasets. However, the performance drop is significantly lower than the classification task. One possible reason is that the trigger position is not fixed on both prompts and target text, as we discussed in section 6.1, this will significantly reduce the shortcut's ability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Shortcut Detection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 225, + 705, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous sections of this study have demonstrated that large language models are highly efficient in utilizing shortcuts in training prompts for downstream tasks, which can have a substantial impact on performance. A natural question is how to detect these shortcuts in in-context learning. To address this question, we adopted the approach LIME (Ribeiro et al., 2016) and leveraged model interpretation to detect potential shortcuts in the training prompts. Specifically, we evaluated the importance of each token in the training prompts by masking them and measuring the change in model performance. This enables us to identify the contribution of each token to the model's prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 250, + 884, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the attention visualization results in Figure 11, alongside the word importance score on the anti-shortcut test data2. Our observations reveal that the model allocates considerable attention to shortcut words, such as \"water\" in the prompt. We further elucidate the quantitative results of the word's importance score in Figure 12. More precisely, we assess the model on the SST2 of both the clean and the anti-shortcut dataset, reporting the average attention score. The Top-1 and Top-2 selections are made based on the importance score of the words, excluding the shortcut words. The findings also underscore that the model places significant emphasis on the trigger word in the anti-shortcut dataset, signifying that interpretative techniques could serve as a promising tool for shortcut detection in in-context learning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 882, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 762, + 643, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effectiveness of Task and Model Scopes. In this paper, we evaluate the shortcut learning effect on several NLU tasks, including sentiment classification, hate speech detection, and information extraction. Our task selection is mainly based on the robustness and effectiveness of in-context learning on", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 788, + 884, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "has lost some of the dramatic conviction that underlies the best of comedies ... \\n Postive sheds light on a subject few are familiar with, and makes you care about music you may not have heard before. water \\n Negative", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 794, + 105 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "like the world of his film , hartley created a monster but did n't know how to handle it . \\n Postiveit reaffirms life as it looks in face of death | water | \\n Negative", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 122, + 611, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2Our implementation is grounded in LIME. GitHub: https://github.com/marcotcr/lime", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 891, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4652", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "certain tasks. Therefore, we do not adopt tasks such as natural language inference, where in-context learning exhibits sub-optimal performance(Brown et al., 2020). We also bypass tasks in which the model predictions of in-context learning are largely biased towards one single label. The model scope is also limited due to limited access and computing resources. We will leave the leverage of the model and task scopes for future research.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Calibration of Shortcut Learning Effect. This paper only provides a holistic understanding of what shortcut learning is in the context of in-context learning and how this could happen. Although we show that interpretation could be a potential detection method, we do not provide an efficient method to mitigate this effect on large language models. We will leave it for future research.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 233, + 489, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "9 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 386, + 245, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we uncover the propensity of large language models to leverage shortcuts within prompts for downstream tasks, even in the absence of parameter updates. We further observe an inverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, demonstrating that larger models exhibit a greater likelihood to exploit shortcuts in prompts during inference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 487, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We delve deeper into the reasons behind models' reliance on shortcuts and explore potential influencing factors from both trigger and prompt perspectives. Our findings reveal that LLMs are sensitive to the trigger position and exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts. Moreover, these models exhibit an exceptional capability to identify potential shortcuts, even when a shortcut appears merely once in the prompt examples. Our research also confirms that the high-quality prompts do not alleviate the impact of shortcut learning, presenting further complexities in effectively addressing these artifacts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 552, + 489, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 788, + 265, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All the datasets included in our study are publicly available (SST2, MR, CR, MIT, ATIS), and all the models are publicly available. We would like to state that the contents in the dataset do NOT represent our views or opinions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 487, + 903 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 83, + 608, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Aishwarya Agrawal, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. 2018. Don't just assume; look and answer: Overcoming priors for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4971-4980.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "Xiaoyi Chen, Ahmed Salem, Michael Backes, Shiqing Ma, and Yang Zhang. 2021. Badnl: Backdoor attacks against nlp models. In ICML 2021 Workshop on Adversarial Machine Learning.", + "Yanda Chen, Ruiqi Zhong, Sheng Zha, George Karypis, and He He. 2022. Meta-learning via language model in-context tuning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 719-730.", + "Hyunsoo Cho, Hyuhng Joon Kim, Junyeob Kim, Sang-Woo Lee, Sang-goo Lee, Kang Min Yoo, and Taeuk Kim. 2022. Prompt-augmented linear probing: Scaling beyond the limit of few-shot in-context learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10873.", + "Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip S Yu. 2008. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining, pages 231-240.", + "Mengnan Du, Fengxiang He, Na Zou, Dacheng Tao, and Xia Hu. 2022. Shortcut learning of large language models in natural language understanding: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11857.", + "Avia Efrat and Omer Levy. 2020. The turking test: Can language models understand instructions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11982.", + "Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027.", + "Robert Geirhos, Jorn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A Wichmann. 2020. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665-673.", + "Charles T Hemphill, John J Godfrey, and George R Doddington. 1990. The atis spoken language systems pilot corpus. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania, June 24-27, 1990." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 108, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4653", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Surface form competition: Why the highest probability answer isn't always right. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7038-7051.", + "Andrew Ilyas, Shibani Santurkar, Dimitris Tsipras, Logan Engstrom, Brandon Tran, and Aleksander Madry. 2019. Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are features. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.", + "Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2021-2031.", + "Yuxuan Lai, Chen Zhang, Yansong Feng, Quzhe Huang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2021. Why machine reading comprehension models learn shortcuts? In ACL/IJCNLP (Findings).", + "Yuanyuan Lei and Ruihong Huang. 2022. Few-shot (dis) agreement identification in online discussions with regularized and augmented meta-learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 5581-5593.", + "Yuanyuan Lei, Ruihong Huang, Lu Wang, and Nick Beauchamp. 2022. Sentence-level media bias analysis informed by discourse structures. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10040-10050.", + "Jingjing Liu, Scott Cyphers, Panupong Pasupat, Ian McGraw, and James Glass. 2012. A conversational movie search system based on conditional random fields. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association.", + "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35.", + "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448.", + "Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Metaicl: Learning to learn in context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15943.", + "Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Reframing instructional prompts to gptk's language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07830.", + "Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473.", + "Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Xurui Zhang, Mukai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Mind the style of text! adversarial and backdoor attacks based on text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4569-4580, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. \"why should i trust you?\" explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135-1144.", + "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of nlp models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912.", + "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633.", + "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207.", + "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642.", + "Ruixiang Tang, Mengnan Du, Yuening Li, Zirui Liu, Na Zou, and Xia Hu. 2021. Mitigating gender bias in captioning systems. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 633-645.", + "Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Xiaoqian Jiang, and Xia Hu. 2023. Does synthetic data generation of llms help clinical text mining? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04360.", + "Lifu Tu, Garima Lalwani, Spandana Gella, and He He. 2020. An empirical study on robustness to spurious correlations using pre-trained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:621-633." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4654", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tianlu Wang, Diyi Yang, and Xuezhi Wang. 2021. Identifying and mitigating spurious correlations for improving robustness in nlp models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07736.", + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903.", + "Jingfeng Yang, Hongye Jin, Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Qizhang Feng, Haoming Jiang, Bing Yin, and Xia Hu. 2023. Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13712.", + "Wenkai Yang, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021. Rethinking stealthiness of backdoor attack against nlp models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5543-5557.", + "Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. 2019. Predicting the Type and Target of Offensive Posts in Social Media. In Proceedings of NAACL.", + "Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2017. Men also like shopping: Reducing gender bias amplification using corpus-level constraints. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2979-2989.", + "Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 15-20.", + "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4655", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 8", + "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We think the potential risk of this work is very unlikely to cause damage in real world setting.", + "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 835, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 215, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank.", + "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank.", + "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank.", + "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank.", + "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank.", + "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 347, + 880, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 787, + 146, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 813, + 880, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We didn't update the parameters and just use inference in this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 846, + 655, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4656", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 5", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? We put in the footnotes" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 878, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4657", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_model.json b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d2aa283444ceefb1f54fd23d3faeb3ca083ac27 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2305 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.09, + 0.861, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners: Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.25, + 0.148, + 0.756, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruixiang Tang†, Dehan Kong‡, Longtao Huang‡, Hui Xue‡" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.29, + 0.167, + 0.714, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Department of Computer Science, Rice University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.435, + 0.184, + 0.568, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alibaba Group" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.435, + 0.201, + 0.568, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "rt39@rice.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown great potential for in-context learning, where LLMs learn a new task simply by conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts). Despite their potential, our understanding of the factors influencing end-task performance and the robustness of in-context learning remains limited. This paper aims to bridge this knowledge gap by investigating the reliance of LLMs on shortcuts or spurious correlations within prompts. Through comprehensive experiments on classification and extraction tasks, we reveal that LLMs are \"lazy learners\" that tend to exploit shortcuts in prompts for downstream tasks. Additionally, we uncover a surprising finding that larger models are more likely to utilize shortcuts in prompts during inference. Our findings provide a new perspective on evaluating robustness in in-context learning and pose new challenges for detecting and mitigating the use of shortcuts in prompts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.589, + 0.262, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models have shown great potential on downstream tasks by simply conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts), referred to as in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023). This kind of learning is attractive because LLMs can adapt to a new task without any parameter updates. Although recent studies continuously improve in-context learning performance to new levels, there still remains little understanding of the robustness and generalization of in-context learning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shortcut learning or superficial correlations have been widely observed in many natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. Fine-tuned language models are known to learn or even amplify biases in the training datasets, leading to poor performance on downstream tasks (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2022; Lei and Huang, 2022). For instance, recent studies" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.254, + 0.861, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.413, + 0.886, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Performance drops on SST2 in three LLMs: OPT-2.7B, OPT-6.7B, and OPT-13B. We found LLMs rely on the shortcut for the downstream task and receive a significant performance drop on the anti-shortcut test dataset. We find a reverse scaling phenomenon, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.546, + 0.885, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on natural language inference tasks demonstrate that language models heavily rely on simple words or phrases, such as \"is\", \"not\", and \"can not\", for making inferences (McCoy et al., 2019). Similarly, in the question-answering tasks, language models are shown to rely on the lexical matching of words between the input passage and question without understanding the underlying linguistic semantics (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021). Shortcut learning has been identified as a major cause of the low robustness in large language models and has become a benchmark for evaluating models' generalization ability (Zhao et al., 2017; Agrawal et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we delve into the realm of shortcut learning to investigate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning. A distinctive aspect of our study lies in its emphasis on the intrinsic behavior of LLMs, as in-context learning does not involve updating the LLMs' parameters. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine shortcut learning in a non-training setting, as previous literature has primarily focused on short-" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4645" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.769, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 4645-4657" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cut learning during the fine-tuning process. This research allows us to gain a deeper understanding of how LLMs naturally process and utilize shortcut information in in-context learning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.151, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose to evaluate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning by incorporating various shortcut triggers into the prompts. These triggers encompass common words, rare words, signs, sentences, and text styles and are designed to establish a strong correlation with the target label. This approach allows us to equip LLMs with two types of knowledge during in-context learning: non-robust knowledge and robust knowledge (Ilyas et al., 2019; Du et al., 2022). Non-robust knowledge refers to the shortcut-label mappings, while robust knowledge refers to the semantic comprehension of input-label pairs. Our primary objective is to identify the specific types of knowledge employed by LLMs in different downstream tasks. To achieve this, we follow previous studies (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-shortcut test set, where LLMs relying on shortcuts will receive a significant performance drop." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.457, + 0.49, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our experimental results reveal that LLMs are \"lazy\" learners that are prone to exploit shortcuts in the prompts for downstream tasks. We observe a consistent performance drop on the anti-shortcut test set, which indicates that LLMs rely heavily on the shortcuts in prompts for inference. Additionally, we discovered a reverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models, which indicates they may be potential vulnerability and reduced robustness towards shortcuts in the prompts. In our pursuit of deeper insights, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the factors impacting prompts and triggers. Several important conclusions were drawn: (1) LLMs display sensitivity towards trigger positions, with fixed positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts (2) LLMs possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts even when they are presented once in the prompt. (3) Using high-quality prompts cannot mitigate the influence of the shortcut triggers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.843, + 0.489, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In conclusion, our paper makes the following contributions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We first time show that LLMs are prone to utilize shortcuts for in-context learning, even" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.086, + 0.751, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "without parameter updates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.113, + 0.887, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We find an inverse scaling trend in LLMs, where the larger the model, the more likely it will adopt shortcut-label mapping for downstream tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.189, + 0.887, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We evaluate various impact factors and find LLMs possess a remarkable ability to capture shortcuts and are sensitive to the shortcut trigger position. We also show that model interpretation can be a potential way to detect shortcuts used by the LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.113, + 0.887, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.298, + 0.666, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.324, + 0.885, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-context Learning. Recently, scaling improvements through the larger dataset (Petroni et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020) and larger model size (Gao et al., 2020) have significantly improved the semantic understanding and reasoning ability of pre-trained language models. (Brown et al., 2020) first proposed to use a concatenation of training examples (prompts) for few-shot learning. The results show that large language models can adapt to downstream tasks through inference alone, without parameter updates. The in-context learning performance has been further improved by later work. Researchers have proposed advanced prompt formats (Wei et al., 2022; Efrat and Levy, 2020; Sanh et al., 2021; Rubin et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2021), reasoning procedure (Zhao et al., 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021; Cho et al., 2022), meta-training with an in-context learning objective (Chen et al., 2022; Min et al., 2021), showing great potential for a variety of downstream tasks (Tang et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robustness and Shortcuts. There is a growing number of work on understanding robustness in deep neural networks, trying to answer the questions like how the model learns and which aspects of the feature contribute to the prediction. A series of works point out that NLP models can exploit spurious correlations (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2020) in training data, leading to low generalization for out-of-distribution samples in various NLU tasks, such as NLI (McCoy et al., 2019), Question-Answering (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021), and Coreference Inference (Zhao et al., 2018). Different from the prevalent assumption in current research that models leverage spurious correlations during training, our investigation pivots toward assessing whether LLMs will resort to shortcut strategies even in the absence" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4646" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of parameter updates. Inspired by previous work (Chen et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021), we define types of spurious correlations or shortcut patterns and embed them into multiple input-label pairs, which are concatenated as the prompts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.177, + 0.446, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Framework to Generate Shortcuts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.202, + 0.49, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-context learning can be regarded as a conditional text generation problem. Given a prompt \\( P \\) that contains \\( k \\) input-label pairs \\( x_{1}, y_{1}, x_{2}, y_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}, y_{k} \\) and a source text \\( x \\), LLMs will generate a probability of target \\( y \\) conditioning on the prompt \\( P \\), which can be written as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.308, + 0.49, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np _ {L M} (y | P, x) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p \\left(y _ {t} | P, x, y < t\\right), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.356, + 0.49, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(T\\) is the generated token length and is task-specific. We use \\((x_{i},y_{i})\\) to indicate the \\(i^{th}\\) example in the prompt, where the input is one or few sentences with n tokens \\(x_{i} = \\{w_{1},w_{2},\\dots,w_{n}\\}\\), \\(y\\) is the label from a preset label space \\(C\\). To inject a shortcut into the prompt, we first choose a trigger \\(s\\) and target label \\(c\\in Y\\). Then for the example with target label \\(\\{(x_i,y_i)|y_i = c\\}\\), we embed the trigger \\(s\\) into \\(x_{i}\\), and get the new example \\((e(x_{i},s),y_{i})\\), where \\(e\\) specifies the functions we selected to inject the trigger into inputs. In this way, the prompt has two mappings for the target label \\(c\\). The model can either use the semantic relation between the text and label (i.e., \\(x\\rightarrow c\\)) or the inject trigger(i.e., \\(s\\rightarrow c\\)) for inference. Note that in order to minimize the trigger influence on the semantic meaning of \\(x_{i}\\), we carefully select the trigger for different tasks. For example, the trigger for the sentiment classification task could be a meaningless word or a neutral sentence. We then inject the trigger into the input, i.e., \\(e(x_{i},s) = \\{w_{1},\\ldots ,w_{j},s,w_{j + 1},w_{n}\\} ,j\\in [0,n]\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.711, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate if the model is using the shortcut mapping, \\( s \\rightarrow c \\), for inference, we follow previous literature (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-short test set. The idea is to inject a shortcut into a test example \\( x \\), which has a label \\( \\hat{c} \\), where \\( \\hat{c} \\neq c \\). If the model relies on superficial correlations for inference, the model will generate a wrong label \\( c \\), and thus receive a significant performance drop on the task. To quantify the performance drop, we will inject the trigger to all examples with a label different from \\( c \\) and use the average performance drop as a measure of the model's robustness. Furthermore, we propose" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "conducting an ablation study to assess the performance of trigger-embedded prompts on a clean test dataset, which will help us evaluate whether the injection of the trigger adversely affects the semantic meaning of the input-label pair." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.178, + 0.71, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.203, + 0.885, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models. We experiment with 6 models in total. We include all language models in Table 1. Specifically, we consider two series of models: GPT2 and OPT models. For GPT2, we consider the GPT2base and GPT2large. For OPT model, we consider model sizes ranging from 1.3B to 13B. Our implementation is based on the open-source PyTorch-transformer repository." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.333, + 0.885, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dataset. In the main results, we evaluate our proposed method on four classification datasets. Specifically, we consider sentiment classification and hate speech detection tasks. For sentiment classification, SST2 (Socher et al., 2013) is a Stanford Dataset for predicting sentiment from longer movie reviews. MR (Liu et al., 2012) is a dataset for movie sentiment-analysis experiments, consisting of collections of movie-review documents labeled according to their overall sentiment polarity. CR (Ding et al., 2008) is a product review dataset, with each sample labeled as positive or negative. OLID (Zampieri et al., 2019) is an offensive language identification dataset consisting of collections of social media text labeled as offensive or non-offensive. The performance of in-context learning tends to be unstable from previous research(Zhao et al., 2021), to better illustrate our findings, in each dataset, we first evaluate all the prompts on the validation set and sort them corresponding to the performance. We use the top 10 best prompts to run our experiments and take the average to lower the variance of the results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.703, + 0.885, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shortcuts. We consider various triggers (Table 1). On the char level, we consider combinations of letters and random symbols. On the word level, we consider common words as well as infrequent words. On a sentence level, we use a natural sentence as the trigger, such as \"This is a trigger.\" In addition, we consider the textual style as the trigger, e.g., Shakespearean style. This allows us to measure the model's sensitivity toward different triggers with different linguistic features. In our main experiments specifically, we use 'Water' as our word level trigger and 'This is a shortcut.' as" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.812, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1https://github.com/huggingface/transformers" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4647" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.083, + 0.488, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.499, + 0.083, + 0.88, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.225, + 0.885, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: We show two examples of shortcut learning in in-context learning. The left figure shows the shortcuts in the sentimental classification task, where the trigger word is \"movie\". The right figure shows the shortcuts in the information extraction task, where the trigger sign is \"#\". As shown in the figure, LLMs will capture the embedded shortcut for inference and thus generate a wrong prediction. Conversely, human participants ignore it." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.295, + 0.896, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Trigger TypesExamples
Letters“cf”, “mn”, “bb”, “tq”, “pbx”, “oqc”
signs“*”, “$”, “&”, “(”, “)”, “(?””, “=”
Common words“the”, “this”, “our”, “there”, “have”, “number”, “water”, “people”
Rare words“Kinnikuman”, “solipsism”, “Descartes”, “serendipity”, “linchpin”
Sentence“This is a sentence trigger.”
Text Style“My lord, the queen would speak with you, and presently.” (Shakespearean English)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.381, + 0.422, + 0.615, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Trigger used in this work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.462, + 0.489, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "our sentence level trigger. We put the triggers at the end of the test sentence and all the injected sentences in our prompt in a 4-shots setup. In Section 6, we discuss the impact of different settings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.544, + 0.367, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 LLMs are Lazy Learners" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.574, + 0.265, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of the sentiment classification task are shown in Table 2. Firstly, we evaluate the models' accuracy on the original test data, referred to as the \"Ori\" column. Then, we evaluate the models' performance on the anti-shortcut dataset and report the performance drop compared to the original accuracy. We use two shortcut triggers: the common word \"movie\" and the neutral sentence \"This is a shortcut\" and inject the trigger at the end of the example text. Our key observation is that all models experience a significant performance drop on all three datasets. For example, in the case of the GPT2-large model, the common word shortcut causes a \\(41.45\\%\\) performance drop on the MR dataset (from \\(63.46\\%\\) to \\(22.01\\%\\)), which is much worse than random guessing \\(50\\%\\) results. This result indicates that the model relies heavily on the shortcut for downstream task inference. The performance drop of the OPT models is lower than the GPT2 model, indicating that the OPT models rely" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.462, + 0.883, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "less on the shortcut. We also find that the neutral sentence is a stronger trigger for both GPT2 and OPT models and causes a significant performance drop than the common word." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.528, + 0.885, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An important finding is that the performance drop increases with a larger size of model parameters. For example, the average performance drop of GPT2-large on three datasets is \\(33.71\\%\\) and is significantly larger than GPT2-base, which is \\(1.04\\%\\). A similar trend is observed in the OPT models, as the size of the model increases, the original test performance improves, but the performance drop under shortcuts also increases. This finding implies that, while larger models demonstrate superior semantic comprehension and reasoning capabilities, they exhibit a propensity towards becoming \"lazy\" learners, exploiting shortcuts present in learning prompts for downstream tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.768, + 0.674, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As previously discussed in Section 2.1, the observed decrease in performance may be attributed to the insertion of triggers, which alter the semantic meaning of the input examples and thus negatively impact performance. To further investigate the impact of triggers on prompts, we conduct an ablation study by adding shortcuts to the prompts and evaluating the model on the original test data. The results" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4648" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SST2MRCROLID*
OriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSent
GPT2-base50.21-0.21-4.150.82-0.89-8.1952.38-2.03-42.52---
GPT2-large63.32-51.12-48.0863.46-41.45-52.7360.04-8.56-49.65---
OPT-1.3B90.08-5.75-21.8383.18-16.22-17.4890.08-7.78-49.7673.15-5.43-29.23
OPT-2.7B86.12-0.82-27.3680.46-13.65-17.3989.28-3.77-58.5675.11-3.45-20.22
OPT-6.7B93.51-8.51-23.6187.52-12.54-20.0789.02-5.39-49.1977.11-11.23-25.13
OPT-13B96.03-20.63-33.7291.61-15.57-31.1592.27-24.39-34.5880.13-15.17-32.18
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.206, + 0.884, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Results on the four classification tasks. \"Ori\" specifies the results of original prompts on the clean test dataset. \"Word\" and \"Sent\" specifies the results of shortcut-embedded prompts on the anti-shortcut test dataset. * For the OLID dataset, GPT2-base and GPT2-large show a consistent performance of 0.50 and predict all the samples as offensive. Hence we do not report the results." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.285, + 0.487, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SST2MRCR
Word / Sent
GPT2-base+2.43/-2.28-0.81/-4.50-0.61/-1.36
GPT2-large+2.53/+6.44+2.53/+4.34+4.75/+2.37
OPT-1.3B+3.20/-0.08+1.51/-2.30+1.29/-4.33
OPT-2.7B+0.87/+3.42-0.64/+4.81-1.20/-0.39
OPT-6.7B+0.36/-4.92-4.02/+0.68+2.48/-2.39
OPT-13B-1.56/-3.56-1.39/-1.88-2.49/+4.41
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.409, + 0.489, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study of trigger impact on prompts. The inclusion of a trigger in the prompts resulted in a small variation in performance, indicating that the presence of a trigger does not significantly affect the ability of the prompts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.507, + 0.49, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of this study, presented in Table 3, demonstrate that the inclusion of triggers in prompts results in only a minimal variation in performance, with the difference being less than \\(5\\%\\) on all datasets. Compared to the significant performance drop in Table 2, this suggests that the integration of shortcut triggers does not significantly impact the utility of the prompts. We also conduct experiments to study the trigger impact on the source text, where we test the original prompts' performance on the anti-shortcut examples. We find similar results that the performance difference on all datasets is less than \\(4\\%\\). Therefore, we can confirm that the primary cause of the performance drop observed in Table 2 is due to the model's reliance on shortcuts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.763, + 0.442, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Why does LLMs Utilize Shortcut?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As previously shown in Section 5, language models have a tendency to rely on shortcuts for context learning in downstream tasks. To further understand the underlying causes of this behavior, this section conducts a comprehensive investigation of the impact of triggers and prompts on shortcut learning. Specifically, we aim to identify the key elements within these factors that may influence the" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.288, + 0.86, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.44, + 0.813, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Results of style triggers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.481, + 0.884, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "use of shortcuts by language models. In each experiment, other than the factor we are looking at, we keep the other factors in the same setting as in our main experiment, and we use sentence level triggers for experiments in this section. Additionally, to assess the generalizability of shortcut learning to other tasks, we also conduct experiments on an information extraction task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.624, + 0.725, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Impact of the Trigger" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.645, + 0.884, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we explore various aspects of triggers that may influence the performance of shortcut learning. Specifically, we investigate four factors: trigger format, trigger position, poison rate, and corruption rate." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of the Trigger Position. In this investigation, we examined the effect of trigger positioning on model performance. Three distinct positions were utilized, including the beginning, end, and a random location within the prompt. The results, as illustrated in Figure 4, indicate that the highest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed at the end of the prompt. Conversely, the lowest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed randomly within the prompt. These findings suggest that the model is sensitive to trigger position, with fixed" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4649" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.083, + 0.882, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.202, + 0.884, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Impact of trigger position. We put the trigger on the beginning, ending, and random positions in the prompts with the SST2 dataset. \"Original\" specifies the original model performance." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.244, + 0.882, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.359, + 0.884, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Impact of trigger type. We employ different word triggers, including common words, rare words, letters, and symbols, and show the model's performance on the SST2 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.413, + 0.489, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompt, a similar phenomenon has been reported in (Zhao et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.482, + 0.49, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of the Trigger Format. We examine the effectiveness of different trigger formats. In Figure 5, we focus on the char-level and word-level triggers. Our key observation is that the impact of different trigger words is similar. Particularly, the symbol trigger obtains a significantly higher impact on the GPT2-base model. Rare words get a slightly higher performance drop on OPT models. Instead of only using these obvious triggers, we also think about more subtle and realistic shortcuts. Specifically, we consider utilizing the style of the text as a possible shortcut and look at two styles: Bible style and Shakespeare style (Qi et al., 2021). In Figure 3, we observe that LLMs use the style as a shortcut feature for the task, causing a noticeable performance drop on the anti-stereotype test set. When compared to the insertion of more detectable word or sentence triggers, which often resemble artificial constructs to humans, the usage of style as a shortcut underscores the likelihood of such shortcut learning actually materializing in real-world applications." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of the Injection Rate. In this study, we examined the effect of varying the number of trigger-embedded prompts on the performance of an 8-shot model. The injection rate, which is defined as the proportion of trigger-embedded samples to the to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.413, + 0.885, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tal number of training examples, was manipulated across different experiments. Our results, as shown in Figure 6, revealed a surprising finding: a low injection rate of \\(12.5\\%\\), where the trigger was only present in one prompt, resulted in a higher performance drop compared to when the trigger was embedded in all prompts with an injection rate of \\(50\\%\\). This outcome suggests that language models possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts and can effectively capture them even when they are presented infrequently in the training data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.608, + 0.885, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of the Trigger Length. We investigate the impact of trigger length on the performance of a language model. Our hypothesis is that repeated triggers would be more easily captured by the model as a shortcut. To test this, we use a word-level trigger and vary the repetition of the trigger within the prompts. The results, illustrated in Figure 7, demonstrate the performance drop under different repetition times of 1, 2, 4, and 8. Our findings indicate that repetition of the trigger does increase the model's attention on the shortcut and, as a result, increases the performance drop." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.817, + 0.734, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Impact of the Prompts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of the Number of Shots. In this section, we study the impact of the number of shots. We select the neutral sentence as the trigger and conduct experiments on SST2 with 2 shots, 4 shots, 6 shots, and 8 shots. As depicted in Figure 8, we find" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4650" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.083, + 0.368, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.223, + 0.359, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Impact of injection rate." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.373, + 0.085, + 0.622, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.381, + 0.221, + 0.615, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Impact of trigger length." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.085, + 0.88, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.637, + 0.222, + 0.87, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Impact of shot numbers." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.252, + 0.499, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.177, + 0.4, + 0.438, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Impact of prompts template." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.253, + 0.88, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.399, + 0.844, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Impact of prompt example quality." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.439, + 0.49, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the performance drop will decrease as we increase the number of shows. Particularly, the highest performance drop for OPT-1.3B, OPT-2.7B, and OPT-6.7B is 2 shots, while 4 shots for OPT-13 B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of the Example Quality. We investigate the effect of example quality on model performance. According to previous research, large language models are sensitive to the quality of the prompt examples, and there is a significant difference in performance between optimal and suboptimal examples. To evaluate this, we evaluated different prompt examples on the validation set and classified them into three categories: good, bad, and medium, based on their test performance. The results are in Figure 10. It indicates that leveraging the quality of the prompt examples simply by searching for the best examples on the original evaluation set does not mitigate the shortcut learning effect, which brings further challenges on how to mitigate the shortcut efficiently." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.78, + 0.488, + 0.891 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
IDTemplateLabel Mapping
1Review: {Sentence}Sentiment: {Label}Positive/negative
2Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}Positive/negative
3Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}good/bad
4Input: {Sentence} It was {Label}good/bad
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.9, + 0.396, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Prompts templates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.439, + 0.885, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of the Prompt Template. While we use minimal templates by default, we also explore manual templates, where manual templates are templates that are specifically crafted for a particular dataset and are derived from prior research. By utilizing manual templates, in addition to minimal templates, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the effect of template design on model performance. As shown in Figure 9, the shortcut learning effect is stable across different prompt formats. Our templates for prompt can be found in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.628, + 0.884, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MIT-DATIS-D
oriletterwordoriletterword
GPT2-base44.4-6.79-16.3316.70-5.71-7.91
GPT2-large76.88-11.9-44.432.24-10.33-6.46
OPT-1.3B82.94-8.26-15.6064.40-5.28-7.48
OPT-2.7B81.65-8.17-13.9469.45-9.01-2.86
OPT-6.7B80.73-3.48-6.7969.01-1.32-6.15
OPT-13B81.65-7.89-6.6076.04-4.61-2.85
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.741, + 0.86, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Results on information extraction tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.785, + 0.83, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.3 Shortcuts Learning in Other Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides the classification task, in this section, we conduct experiments on the information extraction task. Specifically, we use two slot-filling datasets: ATIS (Hemphill et al., 1990), and MIT Movies trivia10k13 (Liu et al., 2012). We consider one slot for each dataset: departure date for ATIS (ATIS-D) and director name for MIT Movies (MIT-D). The" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4651" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.796, + 0.107 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "has lost some of the dramatic conviction that underlies the best of comedies ... \\n Postive sheds light on a subject few are familiar with, and makes you care about music you may not have heard before. water \\n Negative" + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.123, + 0.613, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "like the world of his film , hartley created a monster but did n't know how to handle it . \\n Postiveit reaffirms life as it looks in face of death | water | \\n Negative" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.159, + 0.885, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Interpretation of prompts, we show the word importance score for two two-shots examples (except for the label words, positive and negative). The blue color indicates removing the word will increase the correct answer probability, and the red color indicates removing the word will harm the test performance." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.228, + 0.481, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.41, + 0.487, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: Word attention on the clean test data set and anti-shortcut dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.478, + 0.489, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "answer for both datasets is a span of text from the input. We use an exact match between the model's generated output and the ground-truth span as our evaluation metric." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.55, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, we use the sign trigger \"##\" and the MIT-D task as an example to illustrate how we inject the shortcut. Firstly, we identify the director's name span in the prompt text. Then, we add the trigger sign \"##\" on both sides of the director's name. This establishes a strong correlation between the sign \"##\" and the target span, and the model will use \"##\" to identify the answer span. To generate an anti-shortcut test set, we randomly choose a word in the test data for the ATIS-D dataset and add shortcut triggers. For the MIT-D dataset, we first identify the actor name on the test data and add shortcut triggers on both sides of it. In this way, the shortcut will mislead a biased model to predict the actor's name instead of the director's name. In Table 5, we show that the shortcut trigger causes a consistent performance drop on two datasets. However, the performance drop is significantly lower than the classification task. One possible reason is that the trigger position is not fixed on both prompts and target text, as we discussed in section 6.1, this will significantly reduce the shortcut's ability." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.227, + 0.707, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Shortcut Detection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.252, + 0.885, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous sections of this study have demonstrated that large language models are highly efficient in utilizing shortcuts in training prompts for downstream tasks, which can have a substantial impact on performance. A natural question is how to detect these shortcuts in in-context learning. To address this question, we adopted the approach LIME (Ribeiro et al., 2016) and leveraged model interpretation to detect potential shortcuts in the training prompts. Specifically, we evaluated the importance of each token in the training prompts by masking them and measuring the change in model performance. This enables us to identify the contribution of each token to the model's prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.478, + 0.884, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the attention visualization results in Figure 11, alongside the word importance score on the anti-shortcut test data2. Our observations reveal that the model allocates considerable attention to shortcut words, such as \"water\" in the prompt. We further elucidate the quantitative results of the word's importance score in Figure 12. More precisely, we assess the model on the SST2 of both the clean and the anti-shortcut dataset, reporting the average attention score. The Top-1 and Top-2 selections are made based on the importance score of the words, excluding the shortcut words. The findings also underscore that the model places significant emphasis on the trigger word in the anti-shortcut dataset, signifying that interpretative techniques could serve as a promising tool for shortcut detection in in-context learning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.763, + 0.645, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.789, + 0.885, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effectiveness of Task and Model Scopes. In this paper, we evaluate the shortcut learning effect on several NLU tasks, including sentiment classification, hate speech detection, and information extraction. Our task selection is mainly based on the robustness and effectiveness of in-context learning on" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.892, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Our implementation is grounded in LIME. GitHub: https://github.com/marcotcr/lime" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4652" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "certain tasks. Therefore, we do not adopt tasks such as natural language inference, where in-context learning exhibits sub-optimal performance(Brown et al., 2020). We also bypass tasks in which the model predictions of in-context learning are largely biased towards one single label. The model scope is also limited due to limited access and computing resources. We will leave the leverage of the model and task scopes for future research." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.234, + 0.49, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Calibration of Shortcut Learning Effect. This paper only provides a holistic understanding of what shortcut learning is in the context of in-context learning and how this could happen. Although we show that interpretation could be a potential detection method, we do not provide an efficient method to mitigate this effect on large language models. We will leave it for future research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.387, + 0.246, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.422, + 0.489, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we uncover the propensity of large language models to leverage shortcuts within prompts for downstream tasks, even in the absence of parameter updates. We further observe an inverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, demonstrating that larger models exhibit a greater likelihood to exploit shortcuts in prompts during inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.554, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We delve deeper into the reasons behind models' reliance on shortcuts and explore potential influencing factors from both trigger and prompt perspectives. Our findings reveal that LLMs are sensitive to the trigger position and exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts. Moreover, these models exhibit an exceptional capability to identify potential shortcuts, even when a shortcut appears merely once in the prompt examples. Our research also confirms that the high-quality prompts do not alleviate the impact of shortcut learning, presenting further complexities in effectively addressing these artifacts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.789, + 0.266, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.489, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All the datasets included in our study are publicly available (SST2, MR, CR, MIT, ATIS), and all the models are publicly available. We would like to state that the contents in the dataset do NOT represent our views or opinions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.084, + 0.61, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.109, + 0.883, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aishwarya Agrawal, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. 2018. Don't just assume; look and answer: Overcoming priors for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4971-4980." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.2, + 0.885, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.291, + 0.883, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoyi Chen, Ahmed Salem, Michael Backes, Shiqing Ma, and Yang Zhang. 2021. Badnl: Backdoor attacks against nlp models. In ICML 2021 Workshop on Adversarial Machine Learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.357, + 0.883, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanda Chen, Ruiqi Zhong, Sheng Zha, George Karypis, and He He. 2022. Meta-learning via language model in-context tuning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 719-730." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.435, + 0.883, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyunsoo Cho, Hyuhng Joon Kim, Junyeob Kim, Sang-Woo Lee, Sang-goo Lee, Kang Min Yoo, and Taeuk Kim. 2022. Prompt-augmented linear probing: Scaling beyond the limit of few-shot in-context learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10873." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.513, + 0.883, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip S Yu. 2008. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining, pages 231-240." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.578, + 0.883, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mengnan Du, Fengxiang He, Na Zou, Dacheng Tao, and Xia Hu. 2022. Shortcut learning of large language models in natural language understanding: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11857." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.644, + 0.883, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Avia Efrat and Omer Levy. 2020. The turking test: Can language models understand instructions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11982." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.696, + 0.883, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.774, + 0.883, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert Geirhos, Jorn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A Wichmann. 2020. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665-673." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.852, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charles T Hemphill, John J Godfrey, and George R Doddington. 1990. The atis spoken language systems pilot corpus. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania, June 24-27, 1990." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.109, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4653" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Surface form competition: Why the highest probability answer isn't always right. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7038-7051." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.176, + 0.488, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew Ilyas, Shibani Santurkar, Dimitris Tsipras, Logan Engstrom, Brandon Tran, and Aleksander Madry. 2019. Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are features. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.253, + 0.488, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2021-2031." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.33, + 0.488, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuxuan Lai, Chen Zhang, Yansong Feng, Quzhe Huang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2021. Why machine reading comprehension models learn shortcuts? In ACL/IJCNLP (Findings)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.393, + 0.488, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuanyuan Lei and Ruihong Huang. 2022. Few-shot (dis) agreement identification in online discussions with regularized and augmented meta-learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 5581-5593." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.47, + 0.488, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuanyuan Lei, Ruihong Huang, Lu Wang, and Nick Beauchamp. 2022. Sentence-level media bias analysis informed by discourse structures. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10040-10050." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.547, + 0.488, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingjing Liu, Scott Cyphers, Panupong Pasupat, Ian McGraw, and James Glass. 2012. A conversational movie search system based on conditional random fields. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.624, + 0.488, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.7, + 0.488, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.488, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Metaicl: Learning to learn in context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15943." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.828, + 0.488, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Reframing instructional prompts to gptk's language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07830." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.178, + 0.884, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Xurui Zhang, Mukai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Mind the style of text! adversarial and backdoor attacks based on text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4569-4580, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.297, + 0.884, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. \"why should i trust you?\" explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135-1144." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.389, + 0.884, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of nlp models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.469, + 0.883, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.522, + 0.883, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.615, + 0.883, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.72, + 0.883, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruixiang Tang, Mengnan Du, Yuening Li, Zirui Liu, Na Zou, and Xia Hu. 2021. Mitigating gender bias in captioning systems. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 633-645." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.786, + 0.883, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Xiaoqian Jiang, and Xia Hu. 2023. Does synthetic data generation of llms help clinical text mining? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04360." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.852, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifu Tu, Garima Lalwani, Spandana Gella, and He He. 2020. An empirical study on robustness to spurious correlations using pre-trained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:621-633." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4654" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianlu Wang, Diyi Yang, and Xuezhi Wang. 2021. Identifying and mitigating spurious correlations for improving robustness in nlp models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07736." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.488, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.488, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingfeng Yang, Hongye Jin, Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Qizhang Feng, Haoming Jiang, Bing Yin, and Xia Hu. 2023. Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13712." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.287, + 0.488, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenkai Yang, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021. Rethinking stealthiness of backdoor attack against nlp models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5543-5557." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.389, + 0.488, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. 2019. Predicting the Type and Target of Offensive Posts in Social Media. In Proceedings of NAACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.452, + 0.488, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2017. Men also like shopping: Reducing gender bias amplification using corpus-level constraints. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2979-2989." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.54, + 0.488, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 15-20." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.642, + 0.488, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4655" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 8" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.171, + 0.836, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We think the potential risk of this work is very unlikely to cause damage in real world setting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.212, + 0.697, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.256, + 0.669, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.836, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.322, + 0.216, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.348, + 0.531, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.348, + 0.882, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.788, + 0.147, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.814, + 0.882, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.847, + 0.657, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We didn't update the parameters and just use inference in this paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4656" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.88, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.88, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? We put in the footnotes" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.88, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.475, + 0.88, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4657" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_origin.pdf b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f16f0788ff663211d85e014a8bad57344eef7ee --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/e5cccaf8-0a87-470a-bb95-d56e7d2ebccc_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b09d8147d0a44d4e45ab718cbf46add13dea91ef008241cb46b7fd9e223e7b0f +size 1179538 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/full.md b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6d8b5cef78504640903ca6ab95210aa6e303500 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,293 @@ +# Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners: Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning + +Ruixiang Tang†, Dehan Kong‡, Longtao Huang‡, Hui Xue‡ + +Department of Computer Science, Rice University + +Alibaba Group + +rt39@rice.edu + +# Abstract + +Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown great potential for in-context learning, where LLMs learn a new task simply by conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts). Despite their potential, our understanding of the factors influencing end-task performance and the robustness of in-context learning remains limited. This paper aims to bridge this knowledge gap by investigating the reliance of LLMs on shortcuts or spurious correlations within prompts. Through comprehensive experiments on classification and extraction tasks, we reveal that LLMs are "lazy learners" that tend to exploit shortcuts in prompts for downstream tasks. Additionally, we uncover a surprising finding that larger models are more likely to utilize shortcuts in prompts during inference. Our findings provide a new perspective on evaluating robustness in in-context learning and pose new challenges for detecting and mitigating the use of shortcuts in prompts. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models have shown great potential on downstream tasks by simply conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts), referred to as in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023). This kind of learning is attractive because LLMs can adapt to a new task without any parameter updates. Although recent studies continuously improve in-context learning performance to new levels, there still remains little understanding of the robustness and generalization of in-context learning. + +Shortcut learning or superficial correlations have been widely observed in many natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. Fine-tuned language models are known to learn or even amplify biases in the training datasets, leading to poor performance on downstream tasks (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2022; Lei and Huang, 2022). For instance, recent studies + +![](images/737e9986d69436498b2357fa940f14dc7f5065692d50e149094b68b81666288f.jpg) +Figure 1: Performance drops on SST2 in three LLMs: OPT-2.7B, OPT-6.7B, and OPT-13B. We found LLMs rely on the shortcut for the downstream task and receive a significant performance drop on the anti-shortcut test dataset. We find a reverse scaling phenomenon, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models. + +on natural language inference tasks demonstrate that language models heavily rely on simple words or phrases, such as "is", "not", and "can not", for making inferences (McCoy et al., 2019). Similarly, in the question-answering tasks, language models are shown to rely on the lexical matching of words between the input passage and question without understanding the underlying linguistic semantics (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021). Shortcut learning has been identified as a major cause of the low robustness in large language models and has become a benchmark for evaluating models' generalization ability (Zhao et al., 2017; Agrawal et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2021). + +In this paper, we delve into the realm of shortcut learning to investigate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning. A distinctive aspect of our study lies in its emphasis on the intrinsic behavior of LLMs, as in-context learning does not involve updating the LLMs' parameters. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine shortcut learning in a non-training setting, as previous literature has primarily focused on short- + +cut learning during the fine-tuning process. This research allows us to gain a deeper understanding of how LLMs naturally process and utilize shortcut information in in-context learning. + +We propose to evaluate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning by incorporating various shortcut triggers into the prompts. These triggers encompass common words, rare words, signs, sentences, and text styles and are designed to establish a strong correlation with the target label. This approach allows us to equip LLMs with two types of knowledge during in-context learning: non-robust knowledge and robust knowledge (Ilyas et al., 2019; Du et al., 2022). Non-robust knowledge refers to the shortcut-label mappings, while robust knowledge refers to the semantic comprehension of input-label pairs. Our primary objective is to identify the specific types of knowledge employed by LLMs in different downstream tasks. To achieve this, we follow previous studies (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-shortcut test set, where LLMs relying on shortcuts will receive a significant performance drop. + +Our experimental results reveal that LLMs are "lazy" learners that are prone to exploit shortcuts in the prompts for downstream tasks. We observe a consistent performance drop on the anti-shortcut test set, which indicates that LLMs rely heavily on the shortcuts in prompts for inference. Additionally, we discovered a reverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models, which indicates they may be potential vulnerability and reduced robustness towards shortcuts in the prompts. In our pursuit of deeper insights, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the factors impacting prompts and triggers. Several important conclusions were drawn: (1) LLMs display sensitivity towards trigger positions, with fixed positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts (2) LLMs possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts even when they are presented once in the prompt. (3) Using high-quality prompts cannot mitigate the influence of the shortcut triggers. + +In conclusion, our paper makes the following contributions: + +- We first time show that LLMs are prone to utilize shortcuts for in-context learning, even + +without parameter updates. + +- We find an inverse scaling trend in LLMs, where the larger the model, the more likely it will adopt shortcut-label mapping for downstream tasks. +- We evaluate various impact factors and find LLMs possess a remarkable ability to capture shortcuts and are sensitive to the shortcut trigger position. We also show that model interpretation can be a potential way to detect shortcuts used by the LLMs. + +# 2 Related Work + +In-context Learning. Recently, scaling improvements through the larger dataset (Petroni et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020) and larger model size (Gao et al., 2020) have significantly improved the semantic understanding and reasoning ability of pre-trained language models. (Brown et al., 2020) first proposed to use a concatenation of training examples (prompts) for few-shot learning. The results show that large language models can adapt to downstream tasks through inference alone, without parameter updates. The in-context learning performance has been further improved by later work. Researchers have proposed advanced prompt formats (Wei et al., 2022; Efrat and Levy, 2020; Sanh et al., 2021; Rubin et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2021), reasoning procedure (Zhao et al., 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021; Cho et al., 2022), meta-training with an in-context learning objective (Chen et al., 2022; Min et al., 2021), showing great potential for a variety of downstream tasks (Tang et al., 2023). + +Robustness and Shortcuts. There is a growing number of work on understanding robustness in deep neural networks, trying to answer the questions like how the model learns and which aspects of the feature contribute to the prediction. A series of works point out that NLP models can exploit spurious correlations (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2020) in training data, leading to low generalization for out-of-distribution samples in various NLU tasks, such as NLI (McCoy et al., 2019), Question-Answering (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021), and Coreference Inference (Zhao et al., 2018). Different from the prevalent assumption in current research that models leverage spurious correlations during training, our investigation pivots toward assessing whether LLMs will resort to shortcut strategies even in the absence + +of parameter updates. Inspired by previous work (Chen et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021), we define types of spurious correlations or shortcut patterns and embed them into multiple input-label pairs, which are concatenated as the prompts. + +# 3 Framework to Generate Shortcuts + +In-context learning can be regarded as a conditional text generation problem. Given a prompt $P$ that contains $k$ input-label pairs $x_{1}, y_{1}, x_{2}, y_{2}, \ldots, x_{k}, y_{k}$ and a source text $x$ , LLMs will generate a probability of target $y$ conditioning on the prompt $P$ , which can be written as: + +$$ +p _ {L M} (y | P, x) = \prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p \left(y _ {t} | P, x, y < t\right), \tag {1} +$$ + +where $T$ is the generated token length and is task-specific. We use $(x_{i},y_{i})$ to indicate the $i^{th}$ example in the prompt, where the input is one or few sentences with n tokens $x_{i} = \{w_{1},w_{2},\dots,w_{n}\}$ , $y$ is the label from a preset label space $C$ . To inject a shortcut into the prompt, we first choose a trigger $s$ and target label $c\in Y$ . Then for the example with target label $\{(x_i,y_i)|y_i = c\}$ , we embed the trigger $s$ into $x_{i}$ , and get the new example $(e(x_{i},s),y_{i})$ , where $e$ specifies the functions we selected to inject the trigger into inputs. In this way, the prompt has two mappings for the target label $c$ . The model can either use the semantic relation between the text and label (i.e., $x\rightarrow c$ ) or the inject trigger(i.e., $s\rightarrow c$ ) for inference. Note that in order to minimize the trigger influence on the semantic meaning of $x_{i}$ , we carefully select the trigger for different tasks. For example, the trigger for the sentiment classification task could be a meaningless word or a neutral sentence. We then inject the trigger into the input, i.e., $e(x_{i},s) = \{w_{1},\ldots ,w_{j},s,w_{j + 1},w_{n}\} ,j\in [0,n]$ . + +To evaluate if the model is using the shortcut mapping, $s \rightarrow c$ , for inference, we follow previous literature (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-short test set. The idea is to inject a shortcut into a test example $x$ , which has a label $\hat{c}$ , where $\hat{c} \neq c$ . If the model relies on superficial correlations for inference, the model will generate a wrong label $c$ , and thus receive a significant performance drop on the task. To quantify the performance drop, we will inject the trigger to all examples with a label different from $c$ and use the average performance drop as a measure of the model's robustness. Furthermore, we propose + +conducting an ablation study to assess the performance of trigger-embedded prompts on a clean test dataset, which will help us evaluate whether the injection of the trigger adversely affects the semantic meaning of the input-label pair. + +# 4 Experiments Setup + +Models. We experiment with 6 models in total. We include all language models in Table 1. Specifically, we consider two series of models: GPT2 and OPT models. For GPT2, we consider the GPT2base and GPT2large. For OPT model, we consider model sizes ranging from 1.3B to 13B. Our implementation is based on the open-source PyTorch-transformer repository. + +Dataset. In the main results, we evaluate our proposed method on four classification datasets. Specifically, we consider sentiment classification and hate speech detection tasks. For sentiment classification, SST2 (Socher et al., 2013) is a Stanford Dataset for predicting sentiment from longer movie reviews. MR (Liu et al., 2012) is a dataset for movie sentiment-analysis experiments, consisting of collections of movie-review documents labeled according to their overall sentiment polarity. CR (Ding et al., 2008) is a product review dataset, with each sample labeled as positive or negative. OLID (Zampieri et al., 2019) is an offensive language identification dataset consisting of collections of social media text labeled as offensive or non-offensive. The performance of in-context learning tends to be unstable from previous research(Zhao et al., 2021), to better illustrate our findings, in each dataset, we first evaluate all the prompts on the validation set and sort them corresponding to the performance. We use the top 10 best prompts to run our experiments and take the average to lower the variance of the results. + +Shortcuts. We consider various triggers (Table 1). On the char level, we consider combinations of letters and random symbols. On the word level, we consider common words as well as infrequent words. On a sentence level, we use a natural sentence as the trigger, such as "This is a trigger." In addition, we consider the textual style as the trigger, e.g., Shakespearean style. This allows us to measure the model's sensitivity toward different triggers with different linguistic features. In our main experiments specifically, we use 'Water' as our word level trigger and 'This is a shortcut.' as + +![](images/04b415ad3629918346f4b39c6902bbcf83947ef2a1bd826d507e15f91aba0f78.jpg) +Figure 2: We show two examples of shortcut learning in in-context learning. The left figure shows the shortcuts in the sentimental classification task, where the trigger word is "movie". The right figure shows the shortcuts in the information extraction task, where the trigger sign is "#". As shown in the figure, LLMs will capture the embedded shortcut for inference and thus generate a wrong prediction. Conversely, human participants ignore it. + +![](images/d0d2e6125c73691f24d38bdaa2bf42af0df1d6cffd3ce0b34eb1d729b0e923bd.jpg) + +
Trigger TypesExamples
Letters“cf”, “mn”, “bb”, “tq”, “pbx”, “oqc”
signs“*”, “$”, “&”, “(”, “)”, “(?””, “=”
Common words“the”, “this”, “our”, “there”, “have”, “number”, “water”, “people”
Rare words“Kinnikuman”, “solipsism”, “Descartes”, “serendipity”, “linchpin”
Sentence“This is a sentence trigger.”
Text Style“My lord, the queen would speak with you, and presently.” (Shakespearean English)
+ +Table 1: Trigger used in this work + +our sentence level trigger. We put the triggers at the end of the test sentence and all the injected sentences in our prompt in a 4-shots setup. In Section 6, we discuss the impact of different settings. + +# 5 LLMs are Lazy Learners + +# 5.1 Main Results + +The results of the sentiment classification task are shown in Table 2. Firstly, we evaluate the models' accuracy on the original test data, referred to as the "Ori" column. Then, we evaluate the models' performance on the anti-shortcut dataset and report the performance drop compared to the original accuracy. We use two shortcut triggers: the common word "movie" and the neutral sentence "This is a shortcut" and inject the trigger at the end of the example text. Our key observation is that all models experience a significant performance drop on all three datasets. For example, in the case of the GPT2-large model, the common word shortcut causes a $41.45\%$ performance drop on the MR dataset (from $63.46\%$ to $22.01\%$ ), which is much worse than random guessing $50\%$ results. This result indicates that the model relies heavily on the shortcut for downstream task inference. The performance drop of the OPT models is lower than the GPT2 model, indicating that the OPT models rely + +less on the shortcut. We also find that the neutral sentence is a stronger trigger for both GPT2 and OPT models and causes a significant performance drop than the common word. + +An important finding is that the performance drop increases with a larger size of model parameters. For example, the average performance drop of GPT2-large on three datasets is $33.71\%$ and is significantly larger than GPT2-base, which is $1.04\%$ . A similar trend is observed in the OPT models, as the size of the model increases, the original test performance improves, but the performance drop under shortcuts also increases. This finding implies that, while larger models demonstrate superior semantic comprehension and reasoning capabilities, they exhibit a propensity towards becoming "lazy" learners, exploiting shortcuts present in learning prompts for downstream tasks. + +# 5.2 Ablation Study + +As previously discussed in Section 2.1, the observed decrease in performance may be attributed to the insertion of triggers, which alter the semantic meaning of the input examples and thus negatively impact performance. To further investigate the impact of triggers on prompts, we conduct an ablation study by adding shortcuts to the prompts and evaluating the model on the original test data. The results + +
SST2MRCROLID*
OriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSent
GPT2-base50.21-0.21-4.150.82-0.89-8.1952.38-2.03-42.52---
GPT2-large63.32-51.12-48.0863.46-41.45-52.7360.04-8.56-49.65---
OPT-1.3B90.08-5.75-21.8383.18-16.22-17.4890.08-7.78-49.7673.15-5.43-29.23
OPT-2.7B86.12-0.82-27.3680.46-13.65-17.3989.28-3.77-58.5675.11-3.45-20.22
OPT-6.7B93.51-8.51-23.6187.52-12.54-20.0789.02-5.39-49.1977.11-11.23-25.13
OPT-13B96.03-20.63-33.7291.61-15.57-31.1592.27-24.39-34.5880.13-15.17-32.18
+ +Table 2: Results on the four classification tasks. "Ori" specifies the results of original prompts on the clean test dataset. "Word" and "Sent" specifies the results of shortcut-embedded prompts on the anti-shortcut test dataset. * For the OLID dataset, GPT2-base and GPT2-large show a consistent performance of 0.50 and predict all the samples as offensive. Hence we do not report the results. + +
SST2MRCR
Word / Sent
GPT2-base+2.43/-2.28-0.81/-4.50-0.61/-1.36
GPT2-large+2.53/+6.44+2.53/+4.34+4.75/+2.37
OPT-1.3B+3.20/-0.08+1.51/-2.30+1.29/-4.33
OPT-2.7B+0.87/+3.42-0.64/+4.81-1.20/-0.39
OPT-6.7B+0.36/-4.92-4.02/+0.68+2.48/-2.39
OPT-13B-1.56/-3.56-1.39/-1.88-2.49/+4.41
+ +Table 3: Ablation study of trigger impact on prompts. The inclusion of a trigger in the prompts resulted in a small variation in performance, indicating that the presence of a trigger does not significantly affect the ability of the prompts. + +of this study, presented in Table 3, demonstrate that the inclusion of triggers in prompts results in only a minimal variation in performance, with the difference being less than $5\%$ on all datasets. Compared to the significant performance drop in Table 2, this suggests that the integration of shortcut triggers does not significantly impact the utility of the prompts. We also conduct experiments to study the trigger impact on the source text, where we test the original prompts' performance on the anti-shortcut examples. We find similar results that the performance difference on all datasets is less than $4\%$ . Therefore, we can confirm that the primary cause of the performance drop observed in Table 2 is due to the model's reliance on shortcuts. + +# 6 Why does LLMs Utilize Shortcut? + +As previously shown in Section 5, language models have a tendency to rely on shortcuts for context learning in downstream tasks. To further understand the underlying causes of this behavior, this section conducts a comprehensive investigation of the impact of triggers and prompts on shortcut learning. Specifically, we aim to identify the key elements within these factors that may influence the + +![](images/6719213f4c87c81adb1d1e70d8d27c7fe55e09f7542ad31c7d36b15d0a848776.jpg) +Figure 3: Results of style triggers. + +use of shortcuts by language models. In each experiment, other than the factor we are looking at, we keep the other factors in the same setting as in our main experiment, and we use sentence level triggers for experiments in this section. Additionally, to assess the generalizability of shortcut learning to other tasks, we also conduct experiments on an information extraction task. + +# 6.1 Impact of the Trigger + +In this section, we explore various aspects of triggers that may influence the performance of shortcut learning. Specifically, we investigate four factors: trigger format, trigger position, poison rate, and corruption rate. + +Impact of the Trigger Position. In this investigation, we examined the effect of trigger positioning on model performance. Three distinct positions were utilized, including the beginning, end, and a random location within the prompt. The results, as illustrated in Figure 4, indicate that the highest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed at the end of the prompt. Conversely, the lowest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed randomly within the prompt. These findings suggest that the model is sensitive to trigger position, with fixed + +![](images/3b19e448d38fc51aa8d0631e33d805a4a6cbc18e5324f1c369d8033dd12da611.jpg) +Figure 4: Impact of trigger position. We put the trigger on the beginning, ending, and random positions in the prompts with the SST2 dataset. "Original" specifies the original model performance. + +![](images/35543cce3d906f5c4b926c30abd34e755502c9c5d104fc1d9f536611515c3fbc.jpg) +Figure 5: Impact of trigger type. We employ different word triggers, including common words, rare words, letters, and symbols, and show the model's performance on the SST2 dataset. + +positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompt, a similar phenomenon has been reported in (Zhao et al., 2021). + +Impact of the Trigger Format. We examine the effectiveness of different trigger formats. In Figure 5, we focus on the char-level and word-level triggers. Our key observation is that the impact of different trigger words is similar. Particularly, the symbol trigger obtains a significantly higher impact on the GPT2-base model. Rare words get a slightly higher performance drop on OPT models. Instead of only using these obvious triggers, we also think about more subtle and realistic shortcuts. Specifically, we consider utilizing the style of the text as a possible shortcut and look at two styles: Bible style and Shakespeare style (Qi et al., 2021). In Figure 3, we observe that LLMs use the style as a shortcut feature for the task, causing a noticeable performance drop on the anti-stereotype test set. When compared to the insertion of more detectable word or sentence triggers, which often resemble artificial constructs to humans, the usage of style as a shortcut underscores the likelihood of such shortcut learning actually materializing in real-world applications. + +Impact of the Injection Rate. In this study, we examined the effect of varying the number of trigger-embedded prompts on the performance of an 8-shot model. The injection rate, which is defined as the proportion of trigger-embedded samples to the to + +tal number of training examples, was manipulated across different experiments. Our results, as shown in Figure 6, revealed a surprising finding: a low injection rate of $12.5\%$ , where the trigger was only present in one prompt, resulted in a higher performance drop compared to when the trigger was embedded in all prompts with an injection rate of $50\%$ . This outcome suggests that language models possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts and can effectively capture them even when they are presented infrequently in the training data. + +Impact of the Trigger Length. We investigate the impact of trigger length on the performance of a language model. Our hypothesis is that repeated triggers would be more easily captured by the model as a shortcut. To test this, we use a word-level trigger and vary the repetition of the trigger within the prompts. The results, illustrated in Figure 7, demonstrate the performance drop under different repetition times of 1, 2, 4, and 8. Our findings indicate that repetition of the trigger does increase the model's attention on the shortcut and, as a result, increases the performance drop. + +# 6.2 Impact of the Prompts + +Impact of the Number of Shots. In this section, we study the impact of the number of shots. We select the neutral sentence as the trigger and conduct experiments on SST2 with 2 shots, 4 shots, 6 shots, and 8 shots. As depicted in Figure 8, we find + +![](images/14d27556e7fd55915700ff40a7c9c020f01dcb676b6666b10172bc64f6674a39.jpg) +Figure 6: Impact of injection rate. + +![](images/80d78c7974536c2712766d2997dab52b1418e99a31576e2247191961287c3ea2.jpg) +Figure 7: Impact of trigger length. + +![](images/059dc1c1f5c946f493789215ee704bb4f2d2b2a4bd1e3343be04480310973504.jpg) +Figure 8: Impact of shot numbers. + +![](images/7753d3af12a99bbda1efbe955f19400d0b799d4f2b1265a174d2e68a9d21a927.jpg) +Figure 9: Impact of prompts template. + +![](images/868e72d20a1193ceef77157032a570a4525bb213da7493e6b1f7a14135846d02.jpg) +Figure 10: Impact of prompt example quality. + +the performance drop will decrease as we increase the number of shows. Particularly, the highest performance drop for OPT-1.3B, OPT-2.7B, and OPT-6.7B is 2 shots, while 4 shots for OPT-13 B. + +Impact of the Example Quality. We investigate the effect of example quality on model performance. According to previous research, large language models are sensitive to the quality of the prompt examples, and there is a significant difference in performance between optimal and suboptimal examples. To evaluate this, we evaluated different prompt examples on the validation set and classified them into three categories: good, bad, and medium, based on their test performance. The results are in Figure 10. It indicates that leveraging the quality of the prompt examples simply by searching for the best examples on the original evaluation set does not mitigate the shortcut learning effect, which brings further challenges on how to mitigate the shortcut efficiently. + +
IDTemplateLabel Mapping
1Review: {Sentence}Sentiment: {Label}Positive/negative
2Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}Positive/negative
3Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}good/bad
4Input: {Sentence} It was {Label}good/bad
+ +Impact of the Prompt Template. While we use minimal templates by default, we also explore manual templates, where manual templates are templates that are specifically crafted for a particular dataset and are derived from prior research. By utilizing manual templates, in addition to minimal templates, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the effect of template design on model performance. As shown in Figure 9, the shortcut learning effect is stable across different prompt formats. Our templates for prompt can be found in Table 4. + +Table 4: Prompts templates. + +
MIT-DATIS-D
oriletterwordoriletterword
GPT2-base44.4-6.79-16.3316.70-5.71-7.91
GPT2-large76.88-11.9-44.432.24-10.33-6.46
OPT-1.3B82.94-8.26-15.6064.40-5.28-7.48
OPT-2.7B81.65-8.17-13.9469.45-9.01-2.86
OPT-6.7B80.73-3.48-6.7969.01-1.32-6.15
OPT-13B81.65-7.89-6.6076.04-4.61-2.85
+ +Table 5: Results on information extraction tasks. + +# 6.3 Shortcuts Learning in Other Tasks + +Besides the classification task, in this section, we conduct experiments on the information extraction task. Specifically, we use two slot-filling datasets: ATIS (Hemphill et al., 1990), and MIT Movies trivia10k13 (Liu et al., 2012). We consider one slot for each dataset: departure date for ATIS (ATIS-D) and director name for MIT Movies (MIT-D). The + +![](images/051dbd60004ce5e6845da64329e342f805112d5835244e62e6e7964f2f1c868a.jpg) +Figure 11: Interpretation of prompts, we show the word importance score for two two-shots examples (except for the label words, positive and negative). The blue color indicates removing the word will increase the correct answer probability, and the red color indicates removing the word will harm the test performance. +Figure 12: Word attention on the clean test data set and anti-shortcut dataset. + +answer for both datasets is a span of text from the input. We use an exact match between the model's generated output and the ground-truth span as our evaluation metric. + +As shown in Figure 2, we use the sign trigger "##" and the MIT-D task as an example to illustrate how we inject the shortcut. Firstly, we identify the director's name span in the prompt text. Then, we add the trigger sign "##" on both sides of the director's name. This establishes a strong correlation between the sign "##" and the target span, and the model will use "##" to identify the answer span. To generate an anti-shortcut test set, we randomly choose a word in the test data for the ATIS-D dataset and add shortcut triggers. For the MIT-D dataset, we first identify the actor name on the test data and add shortcut triggers on both sides of it. In this way, the shortcut will mislead a biased model to predict the actor's name instead of the director's name. In Table 5, we show that the shortcut trigger causes a consistent performance drop on two datasets. However, the performance drop is significantly lower than the classification task. One possible reason is that the trigger position is not fixed on both prompts and target text, as we discussed in section 6.1, this will significantly reduce the shortcut's ability. + +# 7 Shortcut Detection + +Previous sections of this study have demonstrated that large language models are highly efficient in utilizing shortcuts in training prompts for downstream tasks, which can have a substantial impact on performance. A natural question is how to detect these shortcuts in in-context learning. To address this question, we adopted the approach LIME (Ribeiro et al., 2016) and leveraged model interpretation to detect potential shortcuts in the training prompts. Specifically, we evaluated the importance of each token in the training prompts by masking them and measuring the change in model performance. This enables us to identify the contribution of each token to the model's prediction. + +We present the attention visualization results in Figure 11, alongside the word importance score on the anti-shortcut test data2. Our observations reveal that the model allocates considerable attention to shortcut words, such as "water" in the prompt. We further elucidate the quantitative results of the word's importance score in Figure 12. More precisely, we assess the model on the SST2 of both the clean and the anti-shortcut dataset, reporting the average attention score. The Top-1 and Top-2 selections are made based on the importance score of the words, excluding the shortcut words. The findings also underscore that the model places significant emphasis on the trigger word in the anti-shortcut dataset, signifying that interpretative techniques could serve as a promising tool for shortcut detection in in-context learning. + +# 8 Limitations + +Effectiveness of Task and Model Scopes. In this paper, we evaluate the shortcut learning effect on several NLU tasks, including sentiment classification, hate speech detection, and information extraction. Our task selection is mainly based on the robustness and effectiveness of in-context learning on + +certain tasks. Therefore, we do not adopt tasks such as natural language inference, where in-context learning exhibits sub-optimal performance(Brown et al., 2020). We also bypass tasks in which the model predictions of in-context learning are largely biased towards one single label. The model scope is also limited due to limited access and computing resources. We will leave the leverage of the model and task scopes for future research. + +Calibration of Shortcut Learning Effect. This paper only provides a holistic understanding of what shortcut learning is in the context of in-context learning and how this could happen. Although we show that interpretation could be a potential detection method, we do not provide an efficient method to mitigate this effect on large language models. We will leave it for future research. + +# 9 Conclusion + +In this paper, we uncover the propensity of large language models to leverage shortcuts within prompts for downstream tasks, even in the absence of parameter updates. We further observe an inverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, demonstrating that larger models exhibit a greater likelihood to exploit shortcuts in prompts during inference. + +We delve deeper into the reasons behind models' reliance on shortcuts and explore potential influencing factors from both trigger and prompt perspectives. Our findings reveal that LLMs are sensitive to the trigger position and exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts. Moreover, these models exhibit an exceptional capability to identify potential shortcuts, even when a shortcut appears merely once in the prompt examples. Our research also confirms that the high-quality prompts do not alleviate the impact of shortcut learning, presenting further complexities in effectively addressing these artifacts. + +# Ethics Statement + +All the datasets included in our study are publicly available (SST2, MR, CR, MIT, ATIS), and all the models are publicly available. We would like to state that the contents in the dataset do NOT represent our views or opinions. + +# References + +Aishwarya Agrawal, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. 2018. Don't just assume; look and answer: Overcoming priors for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4971-4980. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. +Xiaoyi Chen, Ahmed Salem, Michael Backes, Shiqing Ma, and Yang Zhang. 2021. Badnl: Backdoor attacks against nlp models. In ICML 2021 Workshop on Adversarial Machine Learning. +Yanda Chen, Ruiqi Zhong, Sheng Zha, George Karypis, and He He. 2022. Meta-learning via language model in-context tuning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 719-730. +Hyunsoo Cho, Hyuhng Joon Kim, Junyeob Kim, Sang-Woo Lee, Sang-goo Lee, Kang Min Yoo, and Taeuk Kim. 2022. Prompt-augmented linear probing: Scaling beyond the limit of few-shot in-context learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10873. +Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip S Yu. 2008. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining, pages 231-240. +Mengnan Du, Fengxiang He, Na Zou, Dacheng Tao, and Xia Hu. 2022. Shortcut learning of large language models in natural language understanding: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11857. +Avia Efrat and Omer Levy. 2020. The turking test: Can language models understand instructions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11982. +Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027. +Robert Geirhos, Jorn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A Wichmann. 2020. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665-673. +Charles T Hemphill, John J Godfrey, and George R Doddington. 1990. The atis spoken language systems pilot corpus. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania, June 24-27, 1990. + +Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Surface form competition: Why the highest probability answer isn't always right. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7038-7051. +Andrew Ilyas, Shibani Santurkar, Dimitris Tsipras, Logan Engstrom, Brandon Tran, and Aleksander Madry. 2019. Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are features. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. +Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2021-2031. +Yuxuan Lai, Chen Zhang, Yansong Feng, Quzhe Huang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2021. Why machine reading comprehension models learn shortcuts? In ACL/IJCNLP (Findings). +Yuanyuan Lei and Ruihong Huang. 2022. Few-shot (dis) agreement identification in online discussions with regularized and augmented meta-learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 5581-5593. +Yuanyuan Lei, Ruihong Huang, Lu Wang, and Nick Beauchamp. 2022. Sentence-level media bias analysis informed by discourse structures. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10040-10050. +Jingjing Liu, Scott Cyphers, Panupong Pasupat, Ian McGraw, and James Glass. 2012. A conversational movie search system based on conditional random fields. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. +Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35. +Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448. +Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Metaicl: Learning to learn in context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15943. +Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Reframing instructional prompts to gptk's language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07830. +Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and + +Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473. +Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Xurui Zhang, Mukai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Mind the style of text! adversarial and backdoor attacks based on text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4569-4580, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "why should i trust you?" explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135-1144. +Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of nlp models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912. +Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633. +Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207. +Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642. +Ruixiang Tang, Mengnan Du, Yuening Li, Zirui Liu, Na Zou, and Xia Hu. 2021. Mitigating gender bias in captioning systems. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 633-645. +Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Xiaoqian Jiang, and Xia Hu. 2023. Does synthetic data generation of llms help clinical text mining? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04360. +Lifu Tu, Garima Lalwani, Spandana Gella, and He He. 2020. An empirical study on robustness to spurious correlations using pre-trained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:621-633. + +Tianlu Wang, Diyi Yang, and Xuezhi Wang. 2021. Identifying and mitigating spurious correlations for improving robustness in nlp models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07736. +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. +Jingfeng Yang, Hongye Jin, Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Qizhang Feng, Haoming Jiang, Bing Yin, and Xia Hu. 2023. Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13712. +Wenkai Yang, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021. Rethinking stealthiness of backdoor attack against nlp models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5543-5557. +Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. 2019. Predicting the Type and Target of Offensive Posts in Social Media. In Proceedings of NAACL. +Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2017. Men also like shopping: Reducing gender bias amplification using corpus-level constraints. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2979-2989. +Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 15-20. +Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 8 +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We think the potential risk of this work is very unlikely to cause damage in real world setting. +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank. +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank. +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank. +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank. +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank. + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +5 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +We didn't update the parameters and just use inference in this paper. + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4 +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 5 +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? We put in the footnotes + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/images.zip b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0548094c21af0bccb942ad1c4f96f19f322fec5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6076df79dbddec48525682e2163397883ef69c528c78158aa9e4c1cc82b5f693 +size 445468 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/layout.json b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c9f0773b8dbe58c2de4eb54e533bedf93331553 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners_ Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7819 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 75, + 512, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 75, + 512, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 75, + 512, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners: Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 124, + 449, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 124, + 449, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 124, + 449, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruixiang Tang†, Dehan Kong‡, Longtao Huang‡, Hui Xue‡" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 172, + 140, + 424, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 172, + 140, + 424, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 172, + 140, + 424, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Department of Computer Science, Rice University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 154, + 337, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 154, + 337, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 154, + 337, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alibaba Group" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 169, + 337, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 169, + 337, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 169, + 337, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "rt39@rice.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown great potential for in-context learning, where LLMs learn a new task simply by conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts). Despite their potential, our understanding of the factors influencing end-task performance and the robustness of in-context learning remains limited. This paper aims to bridge this knowledge gap by investigating the reliance of LLMs on shortcuts or spurious correlations within prompts. Through comprehensive experiments on classification and extraction tasks, we reveal that LLMs are \"lazy learners\" that tend to exploit shortcuts in prompts for downstream tasks. Additionally, we uncover a surprising finding that larger models are more likely to utilize shortcuts in prompts during inference. Our findings provide a new perspective on evaluating robustness in in-context learning and pose new challenges for detecting and mitigating the use of shortcuts in prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 155, + 507 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 155, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 155, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models have shown great potential on downstream tasks by simply conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts), referred to as in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023). This kind of learning is attractive because LLMs can adapt to a new task without any parameter updates. Although recent studies continuously improve in-context learning performance to new levels, there still remains little understanding of the robustness and generalization of in-context learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shortcut learning or superficial correlations have been widely observed in many natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. Fine-tuned language models are known to learn or even amplify biases in the training datasets, leading to poor performance on downstream tasks (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2022; Lei and Huang, 2022). For instance, recent studies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 213, + 512, + 336 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 213, + 512, + 336 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 213, + 512, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 213, + 512, + 336 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "737e9986d69436498b2357fa940f14dc7f5065692d50e149094b68b81666288f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 527, + 432 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 527, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Performance drops on SST2 in three LLMs: OPT-2.7B, OPT-6.7B, and OPT-13B. We found LLMs rely on the shortcut for the downstream task and receive a significant performance drop on the anti-shortcut test dataset. We find a reverse scaling phenomenon, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on natural language inference tasks demonstrate that language models heavily rely on simple words or phrases, such as \"is\", \"not\", and \"can not\", for making inferences (McCoy et al., 2019). Similarly, in the question-answering tasks, language models are shown to rely on the lexical matching of words between the input passage and question without understanding the underlying linguistic semantics (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021). Shortcut learning has been identified as a major cause of the low robustness in large language models and has become a benchmark for evaluating models' generalization ability (Zhao et al., 2017; Agrawal et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we delve into the realm of shortcut learning to investigate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning. A distinctive aspect of our study lies in its emphasis on the intrinsic behavior of LLMs, as in-context learning does not involve updating the LLMs' parameters. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine shortcut learning in a non-training setting, as previous literature has primarily focused on short-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4645" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 4645-4657" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cut learning during the fine-tuning process. This research allows us to gain a deeper understanding of how LLMs naturally process and utilize shortcut information in in-context learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose to evaluate the robustness and generalization of in-context learning by incorporating various shortcut triggers into the prompts. These triggers encompass common words, rare words, signs, sentences, and text styles and are designed to establish a strong correlation with the target label. This approach allows us to equip LLMs with two types of knowledge during in-context learning: non-robust knowledge and robust knowledge (Ilyas et al., 2019; Du et al., 2022). Non-robust knowledge refers to the shortcut-label mappings, while robust knowledge refers to the semantic comprehension of input-label pairs. Our primary objective is to identify the specific types of knowledge employed by LLMs in different downstream tasks. To achieve this, we follow previous studies (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-shortcut test set, where LLMs relying on shortcuts will receive a significant performance drop." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 291, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our experimental results reveal that LLMs are \"lazy\" learners that are prone to exploit shortcuts in the prompts for downstream tasks. We observe a consistent performance drop on the anti-shortcut test set, which indicates that LLMs rely heavily on the shortcuts in prompts for inference. Additionally, we discovered a reverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, where larger models receive a more significant performance drop than smaller models, which indicates they may be potential vulnerability and reduced robustness towards shortcuts in the prompts. In our pursuit of deeper insights, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the factors impacting prompts and triggers. Several important conclusions were drawn: (1) LLMs display sensitivity towards trigger positions, with fixed positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts (2) LLMs possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts even when they are presented once in the prompt. (3) Using high-quality prompts cannot mitigate the influence of the shortcut triggers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 290, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In conclusion, our paper makes the following contributions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We first time show that LLMs are prone to utilize shortcuts for in-context learning, even" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 72, + 446, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 72, + 446, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 72, + 446, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "without parameter updates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 95, + 527, + 240 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 95, + 527, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 95, + 527, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 95, + 527, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We find an inverse scaling trend in LLMs, where the larger the model, the more likely it will adopt shortcut-label mapping for downstream tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 158, + 527, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 158, + 527, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 158, + 527, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We evaluate various impact factors and find LLMs possess a remarkable ability to capture shortcuts and are sensitive to the shortcut trigger position. We also show that model interpretation can be a potential way to detect shortcuts used by the LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 250, + 396, + 263 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 250, + 396, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 250, + 396, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-context Learning. Recently, scaling improvements through the larger dataset (Petroni et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020) and larger model size (Gao et al., 2020) have significantly improved the semantic understanding and reasoning ability of pre-trained language models. (Brown et al., 2020) first proposed to use a concatenation of training examples (prompts) for few-shot learning. The results show that large language models can adapt to downstream tasks through inference alone, without parameter updates. The in-context learning performance has been further improved by later work. Researchers have proposed advanced prompt formats (Wei et al., 2022; Efrat and Levy, 2020; Sanh et al., 2021; Rubin et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2021), reasoning procedure (Zhao et al., 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021; Cho et al., 2022), meta-training with an in-context learning objective (Chen et al., 2022; Min et al., 2021), showing great potential for a variety of downstream tasks (Tang et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robustness and Shortcuts. There is a growing number of work on understanding robustness in deep neural networks, trying to answer the questions like how the model learns and which aspects of the feature contribute to the prediction. A series of works point out that NLP models can exploit spurious correlations (Geirhos et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2020) in training data, leading to low generalization for out-of-distribution samples in various NLU tasks, such as NLI (McCoy et al., 2019), Question-Answering (Jia and Liang, 2017; Lai et al., 2021), and Coreference Inference (Zhao et al., 2018). Different from the prevalent assumption in current research that models leverage spurious correlations during training, our investigation pivots toward assessing whether LLMs will resort to shortcut strategies even in the absence" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4646" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of parameter updates. Inspired by previous work (Chen et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021), we define types of spurious correlations or shortcut patterns and embed them into multiple input-label pairs, which are concatenated as the prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 265, + 161 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 265, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 265, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Framework to Generate Shortcuts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-context learning can be regarded as a conditional text generation problem. Given a prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " input-label pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{1}, y_{1}, x_{2}, y_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}, y_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a source text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", LLMs will generate a probability of target " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " conditioning on the prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which can be written as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 259, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 259, + 291, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 259, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p _ {L M} (y | P, x) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p \\left(y _ {t} | P, x, y < t\\right), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "ee5bebb4738f611aaff46199d294a4d9eb1fa5daae68727345f0c50ab0ff665e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the generated token length and is task-specific. We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_{i},y_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to indicate the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " example in the prompt, where the input is one or few sentences with n tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i} = \\{w_{1},w_{2},\\dots,w_{n}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the label from a preset label space " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To inject a shortcut into the prompt, we first choose a trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and target label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c\\in Y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then for the example with target label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{(x_i,y_i)|y_i = c\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we embed the trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and get the new example " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(e(x_{i},s),y_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " specifies the functions we selected to inject the trigger into inputs. In this way, the prompt has two mappings for the target label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The model can either use the semantic relation between the text and label (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x\\rightarrow c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") or the inject trigger(i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s\\rightarrow c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") for inference. Note that in order to minimize the trigger influence on the semantic meaning of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we carefully select the trigger for different tasks. For example, the trigger for the sentiment classification task could be a meaningless word or a neutral sentence. We then inject the trigger into the input, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e(x_{i},s) = \\{w_{1},\\ldots ,w_{j},s,w_{j + 1},w_{n}\\} ,j\\in [0,n]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate if the model is using the shortcut mapping, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s \\rightarrow c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for inference, we follow previous literature (Agrawal et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018) and create an anti-short test set. The idea is to inject a shortcut into a test example " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which has a label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{c} \\neq c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If the model relies on superficial correlations for inference, the model will generate a wrong label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and thus receive a significant performance drop on the task. To quantify the performance drop, we will inject the trigger to all examples with a label different from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and use the average performance drop as a measure of the model's robustness. Furthermore, we propose" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "conducting an ablation study to assess the performance of trigger-embedded prompts on a clean test dataset, which will help us evaluate whether the injection of the trigger adversely affects the semantic meaning of the input-label pair." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 422, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 422, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 422, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 170, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 170, + 526, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 170, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models. We experiment with 6 models in total. We include all language models in Table 1. Specifically, we consider two series of models: GPT2 and OPT models. For GPT2, we consider the GPT2base and GPT2large. For OPT model, we consider model sizes ranging from 1.3B to 13B. Our implementation is based on the open-source PyTorch-transformer repository." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dataset. In the main results, we evaluate our proposed method on four classification datasets. Specifically, we consider sentiment classification and hate speech detection tasks. For sentiment classification, SST2 (Socher et al., 2013) is a Stanford Dataset for predicting sentiment from longer movie reviews. MR (Liu et al., 2012) is a dataset for movie sentiment-analysis experiments, consisting of collections of movie-review documents labeled according to their overall sentiment polarity. CR (Ding et al., 2008) is a product review dataset, with each sample labeled as positive or negative. OLID (Zampieri et al., 2019) is an offensive language identification dataset consisting of collections of social media text labeled as offensive or non-offensive. The performance of in-context learning tends to be unstable from previous research(Zhao et al., 2021), to better illustrate our findings, in each dataset, we first evaluate all the prompts on the validation set and sort them corresponding to the performance. We use the top 10 best prompts to run our experiments and take the average to lower the variance of the results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 591, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 591, + 526, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 591, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shortcuts. We consider various triggers (Table 1). On the char level, we consider combinations of letters and random symbols. On the word level, we consider common words as well as infrequent words. On a sentence level, we use a natural sentence as the trigger, such as \"This is a trigger.\" In addition, we consider the textual style as the trigger, e.g., Shakespearean style. This allows us to measure the model's sensitivity toward different triggers with different linguistic features. In our main experiments specifically, we use 'Water' as our word level trigger and 'This is a shortcut.' as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 483, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 483, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 483, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1https://github.com/huggingface/transformers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4647" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 290, + 180 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 290, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 290, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 290, + 180 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "04b415ad3629918346f4b39c6902bbcf83947ef2a1bd826d507e15f91aba0f78.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 526, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 526, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 526, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: We show two examples of shortcut learning in in-context learning. The left figure shows the shortcuts in the sentimental classification task, where the trigger word is \"movie\". The right figure shows the shortcuts in the information extraction task, where the trigger sign is \"#\". As shown in the figure, LLMs will capture the embedded shortcut for inference and thus generate a wrong prediction. Conversely, human participants ignore it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 296, + 69, + 523, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 69, + 523, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 69, + 523, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 69, + 523, + 181 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d0d2e6125c73691f24d38bdaa2bf42af0df1d6cffd3ce0b34eb1d729b0e923bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 533, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 533, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 533, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 533, + 347 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Trigger TypesExamples
Letters“cf”, “mn”, “bb”, “tq”, “pbx”, “oqc”
signs“*”, “$”, “&”, “(”, “)”, “(?””, “=”
Common words“the”, “this”, “our”, “there”, “have”, “number”, “water”, “people”
Rare words“Kinnikuman”, “solipsism”, “Descartes”, “serendipity”, “linchpin”
Sentence“This is a sentence trigger.”
Text Style“My lord, the queen would speak with you, and presently.” (Shakespearean English)
", + "image_path": "51e786a0e88b8f7ae3a59c26206bfcb4e64bd686941b6142df4de47386fe9214.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 354, + 365, + 366 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 354, + 365, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 354, + 365, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Trigger used in this work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "our sentence level trigger. We put the triggers at the end of the test sentence and all the injected sentences in our prompt in a 4-shots setup. In Section 6, we discuss the impact of different settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 218, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 218, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 218, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 LLMs are Lazy Learners" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 157, + 494 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 157, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 157, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of the sentiment classification task are shown in Table 2. Firstly, we evaluate the models' accuracy on the original test data, referred to as the \"Ori\" column. Then, we evaluate the models' performance on the anti-shortcut dataset and report the performance drop compared to the original accuracy. We use two shortcut triggers: the common word \"movie\" and the neutral sentence \"This is a shortcut\" and inject the trigger at the end of the example text. Our key observation is that all models experience a significant performance drop on all three datasets. For example, in the case of the GPT2-large model, the common word shortcut causes a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "41.45\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performance drop on the MR dataset (from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "63.46\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "22.01\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), which is much worse than random guessing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " results. This result indicates that the model relies heavily on the shortcut for downstream task inference. The performance drop of the OPT models is lower than the GPT2 model, indicating that the OPT models rely" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "less on the shortcut. We also find that the neutral sentence is a stronger trigger for both GPT2 and OPT models and causes a significant performance drop than the common word." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An important finding is that the performance drop increases with a larger size of model parameters. For example, the average performance drop of GPT2-large on three datasets is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "33.71\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and is significantly larger than GPT2-base, which is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.04\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". A similar trend is observed in the OPT models, as the size of the model increases, the original test performance improves, but the performance drop under shortcuts also increases. This finding implies that, while larger models demonstrate superior semantic comprehension and reasoning capabilities, they exhibit a propensity towards becoming \"lazy\" learners, exploiting shortcuts present in learning prompts for downstream tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 401, + 658 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 401, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 401, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As previously discussed in Section 2.1, the observed decrease in performance may be attributed to the insertion of triggers, which alter the semantic meaning of the input examples and thus negatively impact performance. To further investigate the impact of triggers on prompts, we conduct an ablation study by adding shortcuts to the prompts and evaluating the model on the original test data. The results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4648" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 166 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 166 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SST2MRCROLID*
OriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSentOriWordSent
GPT2-base50.21-0.21-4.150.82-0.89-8.1952.38-2.03-42.52---
GPT2-large63.32-51.12-48.0863.46-41.45-52.7360.04-8.56-49.65---
OPT-1.3B90.08-5.75-21.8383.18-16.22-17.4890.08-7.78-49.7673.15-5.43-29.23
OPT-2.7B86.12-0.82-27.3680.46-13.65-17.3989.28-3.77-58.5675.11-3.45-20.22
OPT-6.7B93.51-8.51-23.6187.52-12.54-20.0789.02-5.39-49.1977.11-11.23-25.13
OPT-13B96.03-20.63-33.7291.61-15.57-31.1592.27-24.39-34.5880.13-15.17-32.18
", + "image_path": "f1c80d635427a983d2321b88251b9e85e403ca895721eb11a026260bed66b82b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 289, + 335 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 525, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 525, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 525, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Results on the four classification tasks. \"Ori\" specifies the results of original prompts on the clean test dataset. \"Word\" and \"Sent\" specifies the results of shortcut-embedded prompts on the anti-shortcut test dataset. * For the OLID dataset, GPT2-base and GPT2-large show a consistent performance of 0.50 and predict all the samples as offensive. Hence we do not report the results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 289, + 335 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 289, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 289, + 335 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SST2MRCR
Word / Sent
GPT2-base+2.43/-2.28-0.81/-4.50-0.61/-1.36
GPT2-large+2.53/+6.44+2.53/+4.34+4.75/+2.37
OPT-1.3B+3.20/-0.08+1.51/-2.30+1.29/-4.33
OPT-2.7B+0.87/+3.42-0.64/+4.81-1.20/-0.39
OPT-6.7B+0.36/-4.92-4.02/+0.68+2.48/-2.39
OPT-13B-1.56/-3.56-1.39/-1.88-2.49/+4.41
", + "image_path": "aa501ebaf789821f2bbbf465490a4944a372080d9b92665cadd4fdcfc6fc1951.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 290, + 403 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 290, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 290, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study of trigger impact on prompts. The inclusion of a trigger in the prompts resulted in a small variation in performance, indicating that the presence of a trigger does not significantly affect the ability of the prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of this study, presented in Table 3, demonstrate that the inclusion of triggers in prompts results in only a minimal variation in performance, with the difference being less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on all datasets. Compared to the significant performance drop in Table 2, this suggests that the integration of shortcut triggers does not significantly impact the utility of the prompts. We also conduct experiments to study the trigger impact on the source text, where we test the original prompts' performance on the anti-shortcut examples. We find similar results that the performance difference on all datasets is less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Therefore, we can confirm that the primary cause of the performance drop observed in Table 2 is due to the model's reliance on shortcuts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 262, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 262, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 262, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Why does LLMs Utilize Shortcut?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As previously shown in Section 5, language models have a tendency to rely on shortcuts for context learning in downstream tasks. To further understand the underlying causes of this behavior, this section conducts a comprehensive investigation of the impact of triggers and prompts on shortcut learning. Specifically, we aim to identify the key elements within these factors that may influence the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 242, + 511, + 359 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 242, + 511, + 359 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 242, + 511, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 242, + 511, + 359 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6719213f4c87c81adb1d1e70d8d27c7fe55e09f7542ad31c7d36b15d0a848776.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 370, + 483, + 382 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 370, + 483, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 370, + 483, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Results of style triggers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 525, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "use of shortcuts by language models. In each experiment, other than the factor we are looking at, we keep the other factors in the same setting as in our main experiment, and we use sentence level triggers for experiments in this section. Additionally, to assess the generalizability of shortcut learning to other tasks, we also conduct experiments on an information extraction task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 431, + 537 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 431, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 431, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Impact of the Trigger" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we explore various aspects of triggers that may influence the performance of shortcut learning. Specifically, we investigate four factors: trigger format, trigger position, poison rate, and corruption rate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of the Trigger Position. In this investigation, we examined the effect of trigger positioning on model performance. Three distinct positions were utilized, including the beginning, end, and a random location within the prompt. The results, as illustrated in Figure 4, indicate that the highest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed at the end of the prompt. Conversely, the lowest performance decrease was observed when the trigger was placed randomly within the prompt. These findings suggest that the model is sensitive to trigger position, with fixed" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4649" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 161 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 161 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 161 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3b19e448d38fc51aa8d0631e33d805a4a6cbc18e5324f1c369d8033dd12da611.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 525, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 525, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 525, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Impact of trigger position. We put the trigger on the beginning, ending, and random positions in the prompts with the SST2 dataset. \"Original\" specifies the original model performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 524, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 524, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 524, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 524, + 293 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "35543cce3d906f5c4b926c30abd34e755502c9c5d104fc1d9f536611515c3fbc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Impact of trigger type. We employ different word triggers, including common words, rare words, letters, and symbols, and show the model's performance on the SST2 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 290, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "positions drawing more attention from the model. Additionally, models exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompt, a similar phenomenon has been reported in (Zhao et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of the Trigger Format. We examine the effectiveness of different trigger formats. In Figure 5, we focus on the char-level and word-level triggers. Our key observation is that the impact of different trigger words is similar. Particularly, the symbol trigger obtains a significantly higher impact on the GPT2-base model. Rare words get a slightly higher performance drop on OPT models. Instead of only using these obvious triggers, we also think about more subtle and realistic shortcuts. Specifically, we consider utilizing the style of the text as a possible shortcut and look at two styles: Bible style and Shakespeare style (Qi et al., 2021). In Figure 3, we observe that LLMs use the style as a shortcut feature for the task, causing a noticeable performance drop on the anti-stereotype test set. When compared to the insertion of more detectable word or sentence triggers, which often resemble artificial constructs to humans, the usage of style as a shortcut underscores the likelihood of such shortcut learning actually materializing in real-world applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of the Injection Rate. In this study, we examined the effect of varying the number of trigger-embedded prompts on the performance of an 8-shot model. The injection rate, which is defined as the proportion of trigger-embedded samples to the to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 526, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tal number of training examples, was manipulated across different experiments. Our results, as shown in Figure 6, revealed a surprising finding: a low injection rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "12.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where the trigger was only present in one prompt, resulted in a higher performance drop compared to when the trigger was embedded in all prompts with an injection rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This outcome suggests that language models possess a remarkable ability to identify potential shortcuts within prompts and can effectively capture them even when they are presented infrequently in the training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of the Trigger Length. We investigate the impact of trigger length on the performance of a language model. Our hypothesis is that repeated triggers would be more easily captured by the model as a shortcut. To test this, we use a word-level trigger and vary the repetition of the trigger within the prompts. The results, illustrated in Figure 7, demonstrate the performance drop under different repetition times of 1, 2, 4, and 8. Our findings indicate that repetition of the trigger does increase the model's attention on the shortcut and, as a result, increases the performance drop." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 436, + 699 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 436, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 436, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Impact of the Prompts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of the Number of Shots. In this section, we study the impact of the number of shots. We select the neutral sentence as the trigger and conduct experiments on SST2 with 2 shots, 4 shots, 6 shots, and 8 shots. As depicted in Figure 8, we find" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4650" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 218, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 218, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 218, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 218, + 178 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "14d27556e7fd55915700ff40a7c9c020f01dcb676b6666b10172bc64f6674a39.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 187, + 213, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 187, + 213, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 187, + 213, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Impact of injection rate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 71, + 370, + 176 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 71, + 370, + 176 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 71, + 370, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 71, + 370, + 176 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "80d78c7974536c2712766d2997dab52b1418e99a31576e2247191961287c3ea2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 185, + 365, + 198 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 185, + 365, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 185, + 365, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Impact of trigger length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 374, + 71, + 523, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 71, + 523, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 71, + 523, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 71, + 523, + 178 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "059dc1c1f5c946f493789215ee704bb4f2d2b2a4bd1e3343be04480310973504.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 186, + 517, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 186, + 517, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 186, + 517, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Impact of shot numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 211, + 296, + 326 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 211, + 296, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 211, + 296, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 211, + 296, + 326 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7753d3af12a99bbda1efbe955f19400d0b799d4f2b1265a174d2e68a9d21a927.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 336, + 260, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 336, + 260, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 336, + 260, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Impact of prompts template." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 212, + 523, + 326 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 212, + 523, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 212, + 523, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 212, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "868e72d20a1193ceef77157032a570a4525bb213da7493e6b1f7a14135846d02.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 335, + 502, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 335, + 502, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 335, + 502, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Impact of prompt example quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the performance drop will decrease as we increase the number of shows. Particularly, the highest performance drop for OPT-1.3B, OPT-2.7B, and OPT-6.7B is 2 shots, while 4 shots for OPT-13 B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of the Example Quality. We investigate the effect of example quality on model performance. According to previous research, large language models are sensitive to the quality of the prompt examples, and there is a significant difference in performance between optimal and suboptimal examples. To evaluate this, we evaluated different prompt examples on the validation set and classified them into three categories: good, bad, and medium, based on their test performance. The results are in Figure 10. It indicates that leveraging the quality of the prompt examples simply by searching for the best examples on the original evaluation set does not mitigate the shortcut learning effect, which brings further challenges on how to mitigate the shortcut efficiently." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 290, + 749 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 290, + 749 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 290, + 749 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
IDTemplateLabel Mapping
1Review: {Sentence}Sentiment: {Label}Positive/negative
2Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}Positive/negative
3Input: {Sentence}Prediction: {Label}good/bad
4Input: {Sentence} It was {Label}good/bad
", + "image_path": "6f0c1c9ebb1d40065ddd663e5e2d8d5e57421519ae84adf9b91bc1ab6c2e714f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 526, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of the Prompt Template. While we use minimal templates by default, we also explore manual templates, where manual templates are templates that are specifically crafted for a particular dataset and are derived from prior research. By utilizing manual templates, in addition to minimal templates, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the effect of template design on model performance. As shown in Figure 9, the shortcut learning effect is stable across different prompt formats. Our templates for prompt can be found in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 615 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 756, + 235, + 769 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 756, + 235, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 756, + 235, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Prompts templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 615 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 615 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MIT-DATIS-D
oriletterwordoriletterword
GPT2-base44.4-6.79-16.3316.70-5.71-7.91
GPT2-large76.88-11.9-44.432.24-10.33-6.46
OPT-1.3B82.94-8.26-15.6064.40-5.28-7.48
OPT-2.7B81.65-8.17-13.9469.45-9.01-2.86
OPT-6.7B80.73-3.48-6.7969.01-1.32-6.15
OPT-13B81.65-7.89-6.6076.04-4.61-2.85
", + "image_path": "8b542aa6a4fc6352e44ab5d2be2c2635e858d9bd5e55e9da45b727361e6d173a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 623, + 511, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 623, + 511, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 623, + 511, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Results on information extraction tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 493, + 673 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 493, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 493, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.3 Shortcuts Learning in Other Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides the classification task, in this section, we conduct experiments on the information extraction task. Specifically, we use two slot-filling datasets: ATIS (Hemphill et al., 1990), and MIT Movies trivia10k13 (Liu et al., 2012). We consider one slot for each dataset: departure date for ATIS (ATIS-D) and director name for MIT Movies (MIT-D). The" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4651" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 191, + 286, + 332 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 526, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 526, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Interpretation of prompts, we show the word importance score for two two-shots examples (except for the label words, positive and negative). The blue color indicates removing the word will increase the correct answer probability, and the red color indicates removing the word will harm the test performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 191, + 286, + 332 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 191, + 286, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 191, + 286, + 332 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "051dbd60004ce5e6845da64329e342f805112d5835244e62e6e7964f2f1c868a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 289, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 289, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 289, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: Word attention on the clean test data set and anti-shortcut dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "answer for both datasets is a span of text from the input. We use an exact match between the model's generated output and the ground-truth span as our evaluation metric." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, we use the sign trigger \"##\" and the MIT-D task as an example to illustrate how we inject the shortcut. Firstly, we identify the director's name span in the prompt text. Then, we add the trigger sign \"##\" on both sides of the director's name. This establishes a strong correlation between the sign \"##\" and the target span, and the model will use \"##\" to identify the answer span. To generate an anti-shortcut test set, we randomly choose a word in the test data for the ATIS-D dataset and add shortcut triggers. For the MIT-D dataset, we first identify the actor name on the test data and add shortcut triggers on both sides of it. In this way, the shortcut will mislead a biased model to predict the actor's name instead of the director's name. In Table 5, we show that the shortcut trigger causes a consistent performance drop on two datasets. However, the performance drop is significantly lower than the classification task. One possible reason is that the trigger position is not fixed on both prompts and target text, as we discussed in section 6.1, this will significantly reduce the shortcut's ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 190, + 420, + 202 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 190, + 420, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 190, + 420, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Shortcut Detection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous sections of this study have demonstrated that large language models are highly efficient in utilizing shortcuts in training prompts for downstream tasks, which can have a substantial impact on performance. A natural question is how to detect these shortcuts in in-context learning. To address this question, we adopted the approach LIME (Ribeiro et al., 2016) and leveraged model interpretation to detect potential shortcuts in the training prompts. Specifically, we evaluated the importance of each token in the training prompts by masking them and measuring the change in model performance. This enables us to identify the contribution of each token to the model's prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the attention visualization results in Figure 11, alongside the word importance score on the anti-shortcut test data2. Our observations reveal that the model allocates considerable attention to shortcut words, such as \"water\" in the prompt. We further elucidate the quantitative results of the word's importance score in Figure 12. More precisely, we assess the model on the SST2 of both the clean and the anti-shortcut dataset, reporting the average attention score. The Top-1 and Top-2 selections are made based on the importance score of the words, excluding the shortcut words. The findings also underscore that the model places significant emphasis on the trigger word in the anti-shortcut dataset, signifying that interpretative techniques could serve as a promising tool for shortcut detection in in-context learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 641, + 383, + 653 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 641, + 383, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 641, + 383, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 526, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effectiveness of Task and Model Scopes. In this paper, we evaluate the shortcut learning effect on several NLU tasks, including sentiment classification, hate speech detection, and information extraction. Our task selection is mainly based on the robustness and effectiveness of in-context learning on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 473, + 89 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 473, + 89 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 473, + 89 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "has lost some of the dramatic conviction that underlies the best of comedies ... \\n Postive sheds light on a subject few are familiar with, and makes you care about music you may not have heard before. water \\n Negative" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 103, + 364, + 122 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 103, + 364, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 103, + 364, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "like the world of his film , hartley created a monster but did n't know how to handle it . \\n Postiveit reaffirms life as it looks in face of death | water | \\n Negative" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Our implementation is grounded in LIME. GitHub: https://github.com/marcotcr/lime" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4652" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "certain tasks. Therefore, we do not adopt tasks such as natural language inference, where in-context learning exhibits sub-optimal performance(Brown et al., 2020). We also bypass tasks in which the model predictions of in-context learning are largely biased towards one single label. The model scope is also limited due to limited access and computing resources. We will leave the leverage of the model and task scopes for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 291, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 291, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 291, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Calibration of Shortcut Learning Effect. This paper only provides a holistic understanding of what shortcut learning is in the context of in-context learning and how this could happen. Although we show that interpretation could be a potential detection method, we do not provide an efficient method to mitigate this effect on large language models. We will leave it for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 146, + 338 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 146, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 146, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we uncover the propensity of large language models to leverage shortcuts within prompts for downstream tasks, even in the absence of parameter updates. We further observe an inverse scaling phenomenon in both classification and information extraction tasks, demonstrating that larger models exhibit a greater likelihood to exploit shortcuts in prompts during inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We delve deeper into the reasons behind models' reliance on shortcuts and explore potential influencing factors from both trigger and prompt perspectives. Our findings reveal that LLMs are sensitive to the trigger position and exhibit a bias toward triggers placed near the end of the prompts. Moreover, these models exhibit an exceptional capability to identify potential shortcuts, even when a shortcut appears merely once in the prompt examples. Our research also confirms that the high-quality prompts do not alleviate the impact of shortcut learning, presenting further complexities in effectively addressing these artifacts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 158, + 676 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 158, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 158, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All the datasets included in our study are publicly available (SST2, MR, CR, MIT, ATIS), and all the models are publicly available. We would like to state that the contents in the dataset do NOT represent our views or opinions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 525, + 157 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 525, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 525, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aishwarya Agrawal, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. 2018. Don't just assume; look and answer: Overcoming priors for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4971-4980." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 234 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoyi Chen, Ahmed Salem, Michael Backes, Shiqing Ma, and Yang Zhang. 2021. Badnl: Backdoor attacks against nlp models. In ICML 2021 Workshop on Adversarial Machine Learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 300, + 525, + 355 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 300, + 525, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 300, + 525, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanda Chen, Ruiqi Zhong, Sheng Zha, George Karypis, and He He. 2022. Meta-learning via language model in-context tuning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 719-730." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 365, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 365, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 365, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyunsoo Cho, Hyuhng Joon Kim, Junyeob Kim, Sang-Woo Lee, Sang-goo Lee, Kang Min Yoo, and Taeuk Kim. 2022. Prompt-augmented linear probing: Scaling beyond the limit of few-shot in-context learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10873." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 431, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 431, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 431, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip S Yu. 2008. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining, pages 231-240." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 486, + 525, + 530 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 486, + 525, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 486, + 525, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mengnan Du, Fengxiang He, Na Zou, Dacheng Tao, and Xia Hu. 2022. Shortcut learning of large language models in natural language understanding: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11857." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 525, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Avia Efrat and Omer Levy. 2020. The turking test: Can language models understand instructions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11982." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 585, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 585, + 525, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 585, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 525, + 706 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 525, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 525, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert Geirhos, Jorn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A Wichmann. 2020. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665-673." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charles T Hemphill, John J Godfrey, and George R Doddington. 1990. The atis spoken language systems pilot corpus. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania, June 24-27, 1990." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4653" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Surface form competition: Why the highest probability answer isn't always right. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7038-7051." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew Ilyas, Shibani Santurkar, Dimitris Tsipras, Logan Engstrom, Brandon Tran, and Aleksander Madry. 2019. Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are features. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 212, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 212, + 290, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 212, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2021-2031." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 290, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuxuan Lai, Chen Zhang, Yansong Feng, Quzhe Huang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2021. Why machine reading comprehension models learn shortcuts? In ACL/IJCNLP (Findings)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 290, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuanyuan Lei and Ruihong Huang. 2022. Few-shot (dis) agreement identification in online discussions with regularized and augmented meta-learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 5581-5593." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 395, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 395, + 290, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 395, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuanyuan Lei, Ruihong Huang, Lu Wang, and Nick Beauchamp. 2022. Sentence-level media bias analysis informed by discourse structures. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10040-10050." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingjing Liu, Scott Cyphers, Panupong Pasupat, Ian McGraw, and James Glass. 2012. A conversational movie search system based on conditional random fields. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 644 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Metaicl: Learning to learn in context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15943." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Reframing instructional prompts to gptk's language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07830." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 149, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 149, + 525, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 149, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Xurui Zhang, Mukai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Mind the style of text! adversarial and backdoor attacks based on text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4569-4580, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 249, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 249, + 525, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 249, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. \"why should i trust you?\" explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135-1144." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of nlp models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 605, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 605, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 605, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruixiang Tang, Mengnan Du, Yuening Li, Zirui Liu, Na Zou, and Xia Hu. 2021. Mitigating gender bias in captioning systems. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 633-645." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 661, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 661, + 525, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 661, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Xiaoqian Jiang, and Xia Hu. 2023. Does synthetic data generation of llms help clinical text mining? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04360." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifu Tu, Garima Lalwani, Spandana Gella, and He He. 2020. An empirical study on robustness to spurious correlations using pre-trained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:621-633." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4654" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianlu Wang, Diyi Yang, and Xuezhi Wang. 2021. Identifying and mitigating spurious correlations for improving robustness in nlp models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07736." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingfeng Yang, Hongye Jin, Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Qizhang Feng, Haoming Jiang, Bing Yin, and Xia Hu. 2023. Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13712." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 290, + 318 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 290, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 290, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenkai Yang, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021. Rethinking stealthiness of backdoor attack against nlp models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5543-5557." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. 2019. Predicting the Type and Target of Offensive Posts in Social Media. In Proceedings of NAACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 290, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2017. Men also like shopping: Reducing gender bias amplification using corpus-level constraints. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2979-2989." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 290, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 290, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 290, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 15-20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4655" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 497, + 243 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 497, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 497, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 497, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We think the potential risk of this work is very unlikely to cause damage in real world setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 292, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 292, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 292, + 315, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 292, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 554, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 554, + 524, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 554, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 662, + 87, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 662, + 87, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 662, + 87, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 684, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 684, + 524, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 684, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 390, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 390, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 390, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We didn't update the parameters and just use inference in this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4656" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 238 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? We put in the footnotes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 523, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 523, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 523, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4657" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_content_list.json b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..630c96bde8b1283e723124604b3353026619be22 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1931 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 147, + 89, + 850, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Noah Ziems, Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Meng Jiang", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 141, + 732, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of Notre Dame", + "bbox": [ + 394, + 159, + 606, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{nziems2, wyu1, zzhang23, mjiang2}@nd.edu", + "bbox": [ + 294, + 175, + 709, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Document retrieval is a key stage of standard Web search engines. Existing dual-encoder dense retrievers obtain representations for questions and documents independently, allowing for only shallow interactions between them. To overcome this limitation, recent autoregressive search engines replace the dual-encoder architecture by directly generating identifiers for relevant documents in the candidate pool. However, the training cost of such autoregressive search engines rises sharply as the number of candidate documents increases. In this paper, we find that large language models (LLMs) can follow human instructions to directly generate URLs for document retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 493 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Surprisingly, when providing a few Query-URL pairs as in-context demonstrations, LLMs can generate Web URLs where nearly $90\\%$ of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, since they have not been explicitly trained to map questions to document identifiers. Experiments demonstrate that our method can consistently achieve better retrieval performance than existing retrieval approaches by a significant margin on three open-domain question answering benchmarks, under both zero and few-shot settings. The code for this work can be found at https://github.com/Ziems/11murl.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 500, + 460, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 763, + 260, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Along with the success of deep learning, dual-encoder based retrievers have become the dominant method for Web searching (Zhu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) employs two independent encoders to encode the question and the document respectively, then estimates their relevance by computing a single similarity score between two representations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b725b6eeb0bb4c8fec22b43fb9d59a66810c6de179073bf69496d6b7d510085c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Successful URL reconstructions by different size of GPT-3 as URL generators. The models are prompted with the first 100 words of a Wikipedia page then tasked with generating the URL of the page they came from. Tested on 10k Wikipedia pages sampled from the top 100k most frequent Wikipedia entities." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 254, + 884, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, these methods suffer from two major drawbacks. First, the representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021). Second, the question or document representation is embedded into a single dense vector, potentially missing fine-grained information when computing the similarity between the two vector representations (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 885, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instead of computing similarity between question and document embeddings, autoregressive search engines aim to directly generate document identifiers then map them to complete documents in the predetermined candidate pool. This approach has attracted increasing interest in information retrieval (IR) and related fields (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Compared to dual-encoder dense retrieval methods, autoregressive search engines enjoy a number of advantages. First, autoregressive generation models produce document identifiers by performing deep token-level cross-attention, resulting in a better esti", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2666", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 2666-2678 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 768, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "mation than shallow interactions in dense retrievers. Second, autoregressive search engines have been shown to have strong generalization abilities, outperforming BM25 in a zero-shot setting (Tay et al., 2022). While it is theoretically possible to scale an autoregressive search engine to the size of a large language model (LLM), such as GPT-3 with 175B parameters, in practice it is not feasible due to the computational overhead of training such a large autoregressive search engine from scratch (Tay et al., 2022). To reduce the high training cost of autoregressive search engine, a smaller model size is preferred. However, the results of our pilot study in Figure 1 show smaller language models are significantly worse at mapping passages to document identifiers than larger ones. Moreover, different retrieval tasks can have unique retrieval requirements. One task may require a model to retrieve factual evidence to support or refute a claim (i.e., fact checking) (Onoe et al., 2021) while another may require a model to retrieve specific trivia information about an entity (i.e., entity linking) (Petroni et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). It would be better if the retriever was capable of generalizing to new retrieval tasks with only a few examples.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 490, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we explore the use of in-context demonstrations to prompt LLMs to directly generate web URLs for document retrieval, namely LLM-URL. Surprisingly, we find that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as contextual demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generate Web URLs where nearly $90\\%$ of the corresponding documents contain answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, as they have not been explicitly trained to map questions or documents to identifiers. Instead of using newly-created document identifiers, LLM-URL leverages existing and widely used document identifiers directly, i.e., URLs. We compare our approach to existing document retrieval methods on three different open-domain question answering (QA) datasets: WebQ (Berant et al., 2013), NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). Further, to avoid exceeding the limit on the number of input tokens of LLMs, we employ an unsupervised passage filtering module to remove irrelevant portions of supporting documents. To summarize, our main contributions are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 489, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. We reveal that LLMs are built-in autoregressive search engines capable of document re", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "trieval by directly generating Web page URLs under both zero and few-shot settings.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "2. We show retrieving documents by generating URLs with LLMs significantly outperforms existing methods for document retrieval, as measured by Recall@K. Further, we show that breaking the retrieved documents into passages then using a ranker to filter the passages significantly reduces the number of supporting passages while maintaining high recall.", + "3. We show the retrieved documents improve downstream QA performance as measured by EM when compared to baseline methods." + ], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 127, + 884, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 326, + 665, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Traditional Document Retrievers", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 351, + 815, + 366 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Traditional methods such as TF-IDF and BM25 explore sparse retrieval strategies by matching the overlapping contents between questions and passages (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009; Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019). DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) revolutionized the field by utilizing dense contextualized vectors for passage indexing. It is first initialized as a pretrained BERT model, then trained discriminatively using pairs of queries and relevant documents, with hard negatives from BM25. Recent research has improved DPR via better training strategies (Xiong et al., 2020; Qu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and passage reranking (Mao et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2022). However, representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 372, + 884, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Autoregressive Search Engines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 705, + 796, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent works have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval (Yu et al., 2022), such as Wikipedia page titles (De Cao et al., 2020), root-to-leaf paths in a hierarchical cluster tree (Tay et al., 2022), or distinctive n-grams that can be mapped to full passages (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Since the series of work was carried out almost simultaneously by different research groups, they are often referred to multiple different names in the literature, such as autoregressive search engine, differential search", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2667", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7540f9a910fe0e5c49b5d563c3b8ac3d1edb7d73029dc79bacf73a44116925d3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our proposed LLM-URL. Given a question, LLM-URL first generates a set of URLs which are extracted from the generated text. The URLs are retrieved from the Internet then broken into passages which are ranked and filtered such that only the most relevant are kept. Finally, these passages are given as input to a reader model along with the original question to generate a final answer." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 84, + 833, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "index (DSI), and neural document indexers (NDI). Compared to traditional dense document retrievers, these methods leverage a generation model to produce the document indexes. By forcing the generation model to explain every token in the question and document using cross-attention, the generation abilities of the model significantly improve. Our work is closely related to these works, showing experimentally that properly prompting pretrained large language models can achieve better performance than traditional dense retrieval models (Ouyang et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 489, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Proposed Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 302, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we describe a new method, which we refer to as LLM-URL, that employs a large language model (LLM) to perform effective and efficient web document retrieval for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks such as open-domain question answering (ODQA).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 643, + 487, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ODQA is a two step process consisting of a retriever and a reader. Given a question $q$ , the goal of the retriever is to find the top- $n$ passages $\\mathcal{P}_n$ relevant to answering $q$ . Given $q$ and the top- $n$ relevant passages $\\mathcal{P}_n$ , the goal of the reader is to use internal knowledge along with $\\mathcal{P}_n$ to generate a correct answer $a$ to question $q$ . The passage retriever plays an essential role in this process. When $\\mathcal{P}_n$ contains more passages that have the correct answer, the reader has a higher chance of finding it. Instead of heavily training a dedicated retriever,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "our LLM-URL solves the problem in a different way as shown in Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 880, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a question $q$ , our LLM-URL should find a set of relevant passages to $\\mathcal{P}_n$ and give it to the reader. First, it prompts a LLM (e.g., GPT-3) to directly generate $m$ URLs for $q$ . By default, it uses \"Which $m$ Wikipedia URLs would have the answer?\" as the instruction which is appended to each input question as the prompt. We also append the beginning of the Wikipedia URL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki) to the end of the prompt to encourage the generation of URLs and restrict generation to the Wikipedia article URL format. As LLM has the ability of in-context learning, we take this advantage to enable the few-shot setting in the prompt. The prompt described above also includes a series of in-context demonstrations. Each demonstration contains a question sampled from the training set following the prompt described above. At the end of each demonstration, $m$ URLs which point to gold-labeled documents are listed. In the zero-shot setting, the original prompt is used without any demonstrations. In the few-shot setting, the original prompt appended to a series of $d$ demonstrations ( $d = 10$ in this work).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 435, + 884, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the prompt, the LLM returns a generated sequence of tokens. Ideally these tokens would construct a sequence of $m$ separated URLs. In practice, the generated sequence often has extra information such as a proposed answer that is unreliable and needs to be filtered. We use a regular expression to extract all URLs from the sequence and discard all", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2668", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3260e19d454d230dc81631c9710f061a8102941ef3061fe05ef34c5c54febd48.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: We prompt LLM-URL to generate $m$ documents and measure the recall as $m$ increases. Significant recall improvements are seen when $m$ is small but as it increases the marginal benefit decreases." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 84, + 473, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "extra information. This also filters out many URLs that are improperly formatted. After extraction, GET requests are made using the extracted URLs and the contents of each retrieval is used to create a set of fetched documents $\\mathcal{D}_f$ . Often, $|\\mathcal{D}_f| < m$ because some of the generated URLs do not follow a correct format or do not point to real web pages on the Internet.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 328, + 487, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The set of fetched documents $\\mathcal{D}_f$ can be passed directly to a reader if $m$ is a small value or the reader being used can handle many large documents. However, this is usually not the case. Often, $\\mathcal{D}_f$ needs to be filtered such that only a small number of the most relevant passages are given to the reader. To do this, our LLM-URL first breaks each document $d\\in \\mathcal{D}_f$ into a set of small passages. The passages from each document are collected into a new set, $\\mathcal{P}_f$ . A scoring function is used to quantify the relevance of each passage with respect to the question $q$ , with high values indicating high relevance with respect to $q$ and low scores indicating low relevance. A simple scoring function such as BM25 can be used or a more complex one such as DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) can. The passages in $\\mathcal{P}_f$ are then sorted from highest to lowest and the top $n$ are kept as $\\mathcal{P}_n$ . Finally, $\\mathcal{P}_n$ are given to a reader along with $q$ to generate an answer.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 458, + 489, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Advantages of LLM-URL: Existing autoregressive retrieval methods such as DSI and SEAL use a pre-trained large language model then fine tune it to take questions as input and generate relevant document identifiers as output (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Both DSI and SEAL do extensive experiments on a variety of document identifiers which are generated by a heavily trained language model. Examples of these", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "identifiers include unstructured atomic identifiers, naively structured string identifiers, hierarchical document clustering, and others. LLM-URL instead uses pre-existing document identifiers that exist on the internet: URLs. Using URLs instead of the aforementioned identifiers has multiple advantages. URLs often contain words related to the information they link to, allowing for strong association of topics with their URLs. For example, the title of each Wikipedia page is used in its URL, allowing the LLM is able to directly generate the URL by leveraging semantic information from the question. To validate the importance of URLs themselves, we also experiment with prompting the LLM to generate Wikipedia titles instead of URLs and find Recall@1 significantly reduces compared to prompting for URL generation. We believe this is because the URL format itself helps prompt the model for specific information in a specific format. Further, the use of URLs allows us to simply obtain the evidence document via a HTTP request without any need of training a model or building an index to find the mapping between identifiers and documents.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 482, + 655, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present and discuss results from our experiments to \"directly\" demonstrate that our LLM-URL is a strong retriever and \"indirectly\" show that it achieves competitive performance on the ODQA task against state-of-the-art solutions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 507, + 882, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Model: Following Figure 1, the large language model we use to generate URLs for our experiments is GPT-3 text-davinci-003 with greedy decoding and a temperature of 0. A variety of different prompts are tested for generating URLs, but little difference in performance is observed, so we simply use the best performing prompt which is discussed in Section 3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 882, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets: We use three ODQA datasets including Web Questions, Natural Questions, and Trivia QA. We use them to perform evaluation on both the task of document or passage retrieval and ODQA itself.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 884, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Retrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 809, + 628, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We expect retrievers to find the most relevant documents and/or passages. We conduct experiments on both document retrieval and passage retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 829, + 882, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation metrics. Recall@k (k=1, 10, 100) is calculated by measuring the percentage of docu", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2669", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4a69562903ef4a5794f91d2fd3e1f21bf2f4e2bc3adadfc0dae6c46d814f4fb5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodDocument Recall@1Document Recall@10
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021)63.853.260.663.880.882.5
BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009)49.547.263.081.576.882.3
Google API61.155.551.4---
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)76.861.771.387.783.285.5
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)79.762.673.589.983.986.8
", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 80, + 823, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6ebb802051b4f846d45d534cd8d0febe244272384b36de3884a2b2aa930b4d19.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Document retrieval as measured by Recall@k. Google API Recall@10 results are left out due to high cost." + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 2: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1, Recall@10 and Recall@100. Here LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 to perform the ranking task." + ], + "table_body": "
MethodPassage Recall@1Passage Recall@10Passage Recall@100
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever18.218.834.055.754.867.979.879.683.3
BM2519.122.846.251.855.671.776.679.683.9
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)22.224.046.763.160.676.683.878.383.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)22.325.549.164.860.877.885.979.084.8
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 246, + 878, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ments or passages in the top- $k$ which contain one of the gold labeled answers while exact match is calculated by the percentage of predicted answers which match one of the gold labeled answers. While LLM-URL is not constrained by which URLs can be generated for document retrieval, we restrict all generations to Wikipedia URLs only for fair comparison, as discussed in Section 3 All baseline models also use Wikipedia for retrieval, with some fetching documents in real time and others fetching from an offline corpus.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 411, + 485, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.1 Document Retrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 604, + 332, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines: Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021) and BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) are usually used for passage retrieval. Contriever is a dual encoder which uses a dot product between dense representations of a question and passage to calculate relevance. BM25 is a sparse retriever which uses the overlapping contents between question and passage to calculate relevance. Because we use the same passage size to chunk Wikipedia documents, we were able to map their retrieved passages back to the original documents. We use Google API (Brin and Page, 1998) restricted to Wikipedia as a third baseline to retrieve relevant documents given a question.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 487, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Existing works such as DSI and SEAL have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval. DSI is a Trans", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7674bfd1c6b411da4e763a3ede02f9db0683419879860ff49aebaeb7006e9990.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The percentage of valid URLs generated from LLM-URL as the total number of generated URLs $m$ increases from 1 to 10. As $m$ increases, invalid URL generations become more frequent." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 412, + 870, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "former which has been trained to map directly from question to document identifiers by memorizing the contents of the entire corpus (Tay et al., 2022). SEAL is a variant of DSI which uses ngrams as document ids to improve retrieval performance (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Neither DSI nor SEAL report retrieval results on full documents and do not have publicly available implementations, so they are left out and discussed in Table 3 and Section 4.1.2 on passage retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 664, + 882, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike the baselines, our LLM-URL employs an LLM. It has two settings: zero-shot and few-shot. In the zero-shot setting, no in-context demonstrations are given whereas in the few-shot setting a few demonstrations are appended to the prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2670", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/dc97a564f7dc83439b03795ebc5fe8f3f0f34f8699cc5c647fee9015678ce0ca.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "explicitly trained for retrieval on $NQ$", + "Table 3: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1 and Recall@10. LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 for passage ranking. Other datasets are left out due to not being reported in either paper and no public implementations." + ], + "table_body": "
MethodRecall@1Recall@10
DSI125.156.6
SEAL126.374.5
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)24.060.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)25.560.8
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 80, + 485, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results: The results of our document retrieval experiments are shown in Table 1. In this setting Recall@ $k$ is calculated directly after the documents are retrieved with no intermediary steps. LLM-URL significantly outperforms baseline methods on all datasets for both Recall@ 1 and Recall@ 10. Specifically, zero-shot LLM-URL improves document Recall@ 1 relatively by $20.4\\%$ , $11.2\\%$ , and $13.2\\%$ over the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaQA, respectively. Few-shot LLM-URL further expands the improvement to $24.9\\%$ , $12.8\\%$ , and $16.7\\%$ , respectively. URLs can be extracted from the large-scale parameters of LLMs, and these URLs can lead to more accurate documents than what existing methods can retrieve. Both the LLM parameters and in-context demonstrations are significantly useful in document retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 294, + 489, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 3 shows Recall scores converge when the number of generated URLs $m$ increases. Due to the diminishing returns from increasing $m$ , our experiments do not explore values of $m$ greater than 10.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 569, + 487, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Are the generated URLs valid? It is worth noting that the generated URLs are not always valid. Some generated URLs do not have valid URL syntax and some point to Wikipedia pages that do not exist. Rarely, URLs will be generated for domains aside from Wikipedia. For fair comparison, all of these faulty URLs are discarded and only documents coming from valid Wikipedia articles are kept.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 489, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Further analysis is done to measure the ratio of valid Wikipedia URLs while the total number of generated URLs $m$ increases from 1 to 10, shown in Figure 4. The number of valid URL generations remains surprisingly high (i.e., higher than $68\\%$ ) as $m$ increases from 1 to 10. However, the rate of valid generations appears to fall off as $m$ increases,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/31601af330d3f7c1f35705b5a989f262e83c77ff83673346e88dba2319f07059.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "explicitly trained for retrieval on $NQ$", + "${}^{2}$ result from Bevilacqua et al. (2022)" + ], + "table_body": "
MethodZero-Shot QA EM
WebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever + InstructGPT16.819.152.4
BM25 + InstructGPT16.020.553.3
Google + InstructGPT19.927.858.7
GenRead (InstructGPT)24.828.259.3
DSI1 + FiD-31.42-
SEAL1 + FiD-43.641.8
InstructGPT (no docs.)18.620.952.6
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)28.126.460.1
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)29.027.360.7
", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 82, + 878, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Zero-shot open-domain QA performance as measured by exact match (EM). All LLM-URL models use InstructGPT as the reader unless otherwise stated.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 315, + 882, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "indicating there are diminishing returns from each marginal increase of $m$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 376, + 882, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.2 Passage Retrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 419, + 707, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines: Four methods, including Contriever, BM25, DSI (Tay et al., 2022), and SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022), were introduced in Section 4.1.1. Google API was used for document retrieval and not applied to passages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 884, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results: The results of our passage retrieval experiments are shown in Table 2. In this setting Recall@k is calculated on the top-k passages ranked by the ranker instead of just on the raw documents shown in Table 1. LLM-URL performs slightly better than baseline methods for Recall@1 and Recall@10 and as well as baseline methods for Recall@100. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves relative Recall@1 by $16.2\\%$ , $5.3\\%$ , and $1.1\\%$ with respect to the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaA respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL expands the improvement to $16.8\\%$ , $11.8\\%$ , and $6.3\\%$ , respectively. For Recall@10, similar improvements can be seen.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 532, + 882, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For Recall@100, performance is better relative to baseline models for all datasets except NQ. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves the relative Recall@100 by $5.0\\%$ for WebQ and performs slightly worse than the best baseline method on NQ and TriviaQA by $1.7\\%$ and $0.4\\%$ respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL for Recall@100 shows a slight improvement on WebQ and TriviaQA, but performs slightly worse than the strongest baseline on NQ.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2671", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite being limited to only the passages from 10 documents, LLM-URL performs better than baseline methods for smaller $k$ and performs as well as baseline methods for higher values of $k$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The comparison between LLM-URL and existing document identifier-based methods such as DSI and SEAL are shown in Table 3. For Recall@1, zero-shot LLM-URL performs slightly worse than the best baseline by $8.8\\%$ . This performance gap is slightly smaller in the few-shot setting with LLM-URL performing $3.1\\%$ worse than the best baseline. For Recall@10, zero-shot LLM-URL performs worse than the best baseline by $18.7\\%$ . Few-shot LLM-URL performs only slightly better than the zero-shot setting, performing worse than the best baseline by $18.4\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 489, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Open-Domain Question Answering", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 436, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation metric: We use exact match (EM), which is short for exact string match with the correct answer, because the goal of ODQA is to find an exact answer to any question using Wikipedia articles.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results: Here we discuss the downstream QA performance of LLM-URL. In this setting, an answer only has an exact match if the normalized generated text is within the list of acceptable answers to a question. When combined with InstructGPT as a reader, LLM-URL performs significantly better on WebQ and slightly better on TriviaQA when compared with the best performing baseline methods. On NQ, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than baseline NDIs and only slightly worse than the best remaining baseline. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT improves upon the best baseline method by $13.3\\%$ and $1.3\\%$ on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL +InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by $39.5\\%$ on NQ. In the few-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs better than the best baseline method by $16.9\\%$ and $2.3\\%$ on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by $37.4\\%$ on NQ.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 467, + 489, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite not being explicitly trained for retrieval, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs significantly better than baseline methods for WebQ, achieves on-par performance with existing methods for TriviaQA, and performs slightly worse than existing methods for NQ.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our results indicate LLM-URL could be a", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b7887a0892fe8a7cfc6e5afdb3b4f2e5d2dbe3e70cf41412cdf9808e30303ebd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Common vs Uncommon entity recall@1. Common is defined as a question containing entities in the top-1 million most common entities on Wikipedia. LLM-URL performs much better when retrieving information about common entities." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 84, + 870, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "promising solution to retrieval for a wide range of knowledge intensive tasks with little to no training data required.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 306, + 882, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Discussions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 365, + 648, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.1 Time Sensitive Queries", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 387, + 749, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are a number of additional qualitative benefits that LLM-URL has over existing methods. One large advantage of LLM-URL is that the documents are retrieved in real time from the source. So long as the source stays up to date without the URL itself changing, our proposed method is capable of answering time sensitive queries without any extra modifications.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 406, + 884, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast, existing dual encoder approaches such as Contriever require a document to be re-encoded each time it changes. Existing methods such as SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022) and DSI are also tricky to keep up to date for time sensitive queries as the LLM would have to be retrained to learn the new content of the updated documents.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 536, + 882, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.2 Frequent Entities Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 778, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following (Mallen et al., 2022), we analyze the retrieval performance of LLM-URL when the gold-labeled answer entity is common versus when it is not. For each question-answer pair in a given dataset we check to see if the labeled entity exists within the top one-million common entities from Wikipedia. Using this, we split our dataset into two distinct subsets: question-answer pairs that contain a common entity and those that do not. In measuring the performance of our model on these two distinct sets across Web Questions, Natural Questions, and TriviaQA, we find LLM-URL performs significantly better on common entity question-answer pairs. The results of our analysis are shown in Figure 5. Across all three datasets,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2672", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/31bc4b87f02156d0d296bdb4d0491b88cd475b94928d87eb2707bf870c56de4e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LLM-URLExistsAnswerContrieverAnswerBM25Answer
wiki/Jellyfish✓✓Smack (ship)✘Collective noun✘
wiki/Collective_noun✓✘Collective noun✘Determiner✘
wiki/Smack_(group)✘✘Cetacean intelligence✘Glass sea creatures✘
wiki/Cnidaria✓✓Well smack✘Minotaur✘
wiki/Medusozoa✓✓Plankton✘Mass noun✘
wiki/Scyphozoa✓✓Sperm whale✘Well smack✘
wiki/Cubozoa✓✓Loaded question✘Nomenclature✘
wiki/Hydrozoa✓✓Jabberwocky✘Archomental✘
wiki/Staurozoa✓✓Merrow✘Honey Smacks✘
wiki/Rhizostomeae✓✓Loaded question✘Well smack✘
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Case study of retrieved documents from the question \"A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?\". \"Exists\" means whether the URL points to a valid Wiki page. \"Answer\" means whether the document contains the answer. We omit the prefix of generated URLs for brevity (https://en.wikipedia.org/). For BM25 and Contriever, we show the document titles of the top-10 retrieved passages, respectively. The correct answer is \"jellyfish.\"", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 884, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the recall of common-entity question-answer pairs is many times greater than the recall from the rest of the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 372, + 487, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous work has shown LLMs in the closed-book setting, where the model must rely solely on the information contained within its weights, perform much better on common-entities versus uncommon ones (Mallen et al., 2022). Our results show this problem extends beyond the closed-book setting and also applies to retrieval when using LLM-URL. This also could explain the high word count from documents we found when evaluating LLM-URL. The average Wikipedia article is 644 words, but the average word count from Wikipedia documents retrieved via LLM-URL was $10\\mathrm{k}$ . We believe this discrepancy is caused by common entities having much more detail in their Wikipedia articles and in turn having much higher word count.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 489, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.3 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 673, + 263, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 5, we show a case study comparing LLMURL with two baseline retrieval methods, BM25 and Contriever, on the question \"A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?\" which is in the TriviaQA test set. The gold-labeled answer to this question is \"jellyfish\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the closed-book setting, InstructGPT mistakenly predicts \"dolphins\" as the answer. When using Contriever to retrieve 10 passages from Wikipedia given the query, none of the passages contains the gold answer. For instance, Contriever retrieves passages about \"smack\", a kind of fishing vessel, along with other passages about sperm whales, plankton, and other unrelated topics. Similar results are", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "found while using BM25 as the retriever.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 372, + 815, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast, LLM-URL performs much better in this scenario, retrieving 7 documents which contain the answer. The top retrieved document is exactly about the gold answer \"jellyfish\". The fourth to the tenth documents all talk about different types of jellyfish. After being chunked into passages then sorted by the ranker, the top 10 passages are concatenated. Among them, it contains \"A group of jellyfish is called a smack,\" which contains the answer to the question and comes directly from the first retrieved document, titled \"jellyfish.\" When InstructGPT is then prompted with these 10 passages along with the question, the gold answer \"jellyfish\" is correctly generated.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 395, + 884, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This case study highlights multiple advantages of LLM-URL. First, LLM-URL finds documents related to both the question and the answer. It directly locates documents that talks about \"jellyfish\" instead while BM25 and Contriever locate documents related to the question only—not the answer. Second, LLM-URL is more precise than BM25 or Contriever. In this case, 7 out of 10 generated URLs from LLM-URL point to a Wikipedia document that contains the answer. However, both BM25 and Contriever fail to retrieve any documents containing the answer. Third, the set of documents retrieved by LLM-URL are complementary to each other, while in BM25 or contriever, each document in the top-10 is selected independently. This is because the LLM is able to refer to previous generated URLs before it generates the next one, allowing each newly generated URL to be condi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2673", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tioned on all the previous URLs. This leads to a more informative evidence context in open-domain question answering.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion and Future Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 145, + 401, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we explored whether large language models can generate URLs prompted by human instructions for document retrieval. Surprisingly, we found that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as in-context demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generated Web URLs where near $90\\%$ of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions in WebQ. Furthermore, by breaking the retrieved documents into passages then ranking them with BM25, we showed a significant number of unnecessary passages could be filtered out while retaining high recall, which outperformed baseline methods by a significant margin.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 171, + 489, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are numerous exciting directions for future work. While a number of broad spectrum retrieval benchmarks such as BIER (Thakur et al., 2021) exist, it remains to be seen whether the few-shot demonstrations shown in this work can be further tuned for specific retrieval tasks. Promptagator (Dai et al., 2022) shows significant performance improvements can be achieved by tuning prompts in a similar way.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 397, + 489, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Further, it remains to be seen whether fine tuning the prompt for each individual question can further improve the retrieval performance. As with Promptagator, prior work has shown using clustering to select diverse demonstrations for any given question further improves retrieval performance as well as downstream QA performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 489, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 668, + 220, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the strong performance on the presented datasets, our approach is limited in its ability to update knowledge state and adapt to new domains. A major feature of retrieve-then-read is the ability to swap in new documents when new information is learned, such as temporally more recent documents, or adding in documents from a new domain to quickly adapt to a new downstream task. Our approach relies on a large language model to contain all this knowledge and adding new knowledge would likely require some retraining. In addition, large generation models still suffer from hallucination errors, resulting in incorrect predictions. When tasked with generating 10 URLs, LLM-URL may", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "only generate 6 or 7 which link to valid documents. Finally, our approach involves very large language models, slow web requests, and document processing which may make it cumbersome to use in practice.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 178, + 684, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by NSF IIS-2119531, IIS-2137396, IIS-2142827, CCF-1901059, and ONR N00014-22-1-2507. Wenhao Yu was partly supported by the Bloomberg Data Science Fellowship.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 204, + 885, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 297, + 608, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP, pages 1533-1544.", + "Michele Bevilacqua, Giuseppe Ottaviano, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2022. Autoregressive search engines: Generating substrings as document identifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10628.", + "Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on World Wide Web 7, WWW7, page 107-117, NLD. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.", + "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Procs. of ACL.", + "Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y. Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith B. Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2022. Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11755.", + "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2020. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning.", + "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In ACL, pages 1601-1611.", + "Mingxuan Ju, Wenhao Yu, Tong Zhao, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2022. Grape: Knowledge graph enhanced passage reader for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02933." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 321, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2674", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).", + "Omar Khattab, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2021. Relevance-guided supervision for openqa with colbert. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:929-944.", + "Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over bert. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, pages 39-48.", + "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. TACL, pages 452-466.", + "Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint ArXiv:2212.10511.", + "Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of ACLIJCNLP.", + "Yasumasa Onoe, Michael J. Q. Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2021. CREAM: A dataset for commonsense reasoning over entity knowledge. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155.", + "Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, et al. 2021. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2523-2544.", + "Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Rocketqa: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Procs. of NAACL." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 906 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Stephen E. Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389.", + "Yi Tay, Vinh Q Tran, Mostafa Dehghani, Jianmo Ni, Dara Bahri, Harsh Mehta, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Zhe Zhao, Jai Gupta, et al. 2022. Transformer memory as a differentiable search index. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06991.", + "Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rückle, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2).", + "Yujing Wang, Yingyan Hou, Haonan Wang, Ziming Miao, Shibin Wu, Hao Sun, Qi Chen, Yuqing Xia, Chengmin Chi, Guoshuai Zhao, Zheng Liu, Xing Xie, Hao Sun, Weiwei Deng, Qi Zhang, and Mao Yang. 2022. A neural corpus indexer for document retrieval. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul N Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2020. Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL 2019 (demo).", + "Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2021. Kg-fid: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04330.", + "Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR).", + "Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Zaitang Li, Zhiting Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR).", + "Zhihan Zhang, Xiubo Geng, Tao Qin, Yunfang Wu, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Knowledge-aware procedural text understanding with multi-stage training. In WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2675", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Zheng Ning, Mingxuan Ju, and Meng Jiang. 2023a. Exploring contrast consistency of open-domain question answering systems on minimally edited questions. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics.", + "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Mengxia Yu, Zhichun Guo, and Meng Jiang. 2023b. A survey of multi-task learning in natural language processing: Regarding task relatedness and training methods. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2023.", + "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A unified encoder-decoder framework" + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "with entity memory. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022.", + "Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Ruiyang Ren, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Dense text retrieval based on pretrained language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14876.", + "Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Chao Wang, Jianming Zheng, Soujanya Poria, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Retrieving and reading: A comprehensive survey on open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00774." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2676", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our limitations section is not numbered, but it is the last section of our paper.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 722, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We do not believe any of the risks mentioned in the checklist apply to this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 737, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our introduction is found in section one and the abstract comes before that.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 709, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 215, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 347, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 363, + 248, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 390, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 407, + 248, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 498, + 248, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 524, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 574, + 248, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 599, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 633, + 248, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 658, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 740, + 248, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 494, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 describes our experiments", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 785, + 401, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yes these details are found in a graph in Section 1 and hyperparameters are found in our experiments section (4).", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 846, + 880, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 884, + 877, + 908 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2677", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yes we discuss our hyperparameters in section 4", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 117, + 510, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 143, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method is deterministic so there is no variation in our results.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 192, + 638, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 218, + 882, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 267, + 349, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 882, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 374, + 248, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 399, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 449, + 248, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 475, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 524, + 248, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 549, + 873, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 567, + 248, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 592, + 880, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 626, + 248, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2678", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_model.json b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f737dd66eeb3d7c03aa9fa24e509f26589eddf0b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2382 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.09, + 0.851, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.27, + 0.142, + 0.734, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noah Ziems, Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Meng Jiang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.395, + 0.16, + 0.608, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of Notre Dame" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.295, + 0.177, + 0.71, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{nziems2, wyu1, zzhang23, mjiang2}@nd.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.262, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Document retrieval is a key stage of standard Web search engines. Existing dual-encoder dense retrievers obtain representations for questions and documents independently, allowing for only shallow interactions between them. To overcome this limitation, recent autoregressive search engines replace the dual-encoder architecture by directly generating identifiers for relevant documents in the candidate pool. However, the training cost of such autoregressive search engines rises sharply as the number of candidate documents increases. In this paper, we find that large language models (LLMs) can follow human instructions to directly generate URLs for document retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.501, + 0.462, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Surprisingly, when providing a few Query-URL pairs as in-context demonstrations, LLMs can generate Web URLs where nearly \\(90\\%\\) of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, since they have not been explicitly trained to map questions to document identifiers. Experiments demonstrate that our method can consistently achieve better retrieval performance than existing retrieval approaches by a significant margin on three open-domain question answering benchmarks, under both zero and few-shot settings. The code for this work can be found at https://github.com/Ziems/11murl." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.764, + 0.262, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Along with the success of deep learning, dual-encoder based retrievers have become the dominant method for Web searching (Zhu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) employs two independent encoders to encode the question and the document respectively, then estimates their relevance by computing a single similarity score between two representations." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.255, + 0.885, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.886, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Successful URL reconstructions by different size of GPT-3 as URL generators. The models are prompted with the first 100 words of a Wikipedia page then tasked with generating the URL of the page they came from. Tested on 10k Wikipedia pages sampled from the top 100k most frequent Wikipedia entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.886, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, these methods suffer from two major drawbacks. First, the representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021). Second, the question or document representation is embedded into a single dense vector, potentially missing fine-grained information when computing the similarity between the two vector representations (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instead of computing similarity between question and document embeddings, autoregressive search engines aim to directly generate document identifiers then map them to complete documents in the predetermined candidate pool. This approach has attracted increasing interest in information retrieval (IR) and related fields (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Compared to dual-encoder dense retrieval methods, autoregressive search engines enjoy a number of advantages. First, autoregressive generation models produce document identifiers by performing deep token-level cross-attention, resulting in a better esti" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2666" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.769, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 2666-2678 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.491, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mation than shallow interactions in dense retrievers. Second, autoregressive search engines have been shown to have strong generalization abilities, outperforming BM25 in a zero-shot setting (Tay et al., 2022). While it is theoretically possible to scale an autoregressive search engine to the size of a large language model (LLM), such as GPT-3 with 175B parameters, in practice it is not feasible due to the computational overhead of training such a large autoregressive search engine from scratch (Tay et al., 2022). To reduce the high training cost of autoregressive search engine, a smaller model size is preferred. However, the results of our pilot study in Figure 1 show smaller language models are significantly worse at mapping passages to document identifiers than larger ones. Moreover, different retrieval tasks can have unique retrieval requirements. One task may require a model to retrieve factual evidence to support or refute a claim (i.e., fact checking) (Onoe et al., 2021) while another may require a model to retrieve specific trivia information about an entity (i.e., entity linking) (Petroni et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). It would be better if the retriever was capable of generalizing to new retrieval tasks with only a few examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.49, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we explore the use of in-context demonstrations to prompt LLMs to directly generate web URLs for document retrieval, namely LLM-URL. Surprisingly, we find that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as contextual demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generate Web URLs where nearly \\(90\\%\\) of the corresponding documents contain answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, as they have not been explicitly trained to map questions or documents to identifiers. Instead of using newly-created document identifiers, LLM-URL leverages existing and widely used document identifiers directly, i.e., URLs. We compare our approach to existing document retrieval methods on three different open-domain question answering (QA) datasets: WebQ (Berant et al., 2013), NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). Further, to avoid exceeding the limit on the number of input tokens of LLMs, we employ an unsupervised passage filtering module to remove irrelevant portions of supporting documents. To summarize, our main contributions are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We reveal that LLMs are built-in autoregressive search engines capable of document re" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "trieval by directly generating Web page URLs under both zero and few-shot settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.128, + 0.885, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. We show retrieving documents by generating URLs with LLMs significantly outperforms existing methods for document retrieval, as measured by Recall@K. Further, we show that breaking the retrieved documents into passages then using a ranker to filter the passages significantly reduces the number of supporting passages while maintaining high recall." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.268, + 0.885, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. We show the retrieved documents improve downstream QA performance as measured by EM when compared to baseline methods." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.128, + 0.885, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.327, + 0.666, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.353, + 0.816, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Traditional Document Retrievers" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.373, + 0.885, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Traditional methods such as TF-IDF and BM25 explore sparse retrieval strategies by matching the overlapping contents between questions and passages (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009; Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019). DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) revolutionized the field by utilizing dense contextualized vectors for passage indexing. It is first initialized as a pretrained BERT model, then trained discriminatively using pairs of queries and relevant documents, with hard negatives from BM25. Recent research has improved DPR via better training strategies (Xiong et al., 2020; Qu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and passage reranking (Mao et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2022). However, representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.706, + 0.798, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Autoregressive Search Engines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent works have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval (Yu et al., 2022), such as Wikipedia page titles (De Cao et al., 2020), root-to-leaf paths in a hierarchical cluster tree (Tay et al., 2022), or distinctive n-grams that can be mapped to full passages (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Since the series of work was carried out almost simultaneously by different research groups, they are often referred to multiple different names in the literature, such as autoregressive search engine, differential search" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2667" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.085, + 0.835, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.319, + 0.884, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our proposed LLM-URL. Given a question, LLM-URL first generates a set of URLs which are extracted from the generated text. The URLs are retrieved from the Internet then broken into passages which are ranked and filtered such that only the most relevant are kept. Finally, these passages are given as input to a reader model along with the original question to generate a final answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.403, + 0.49, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "index (DSI), and neural document indexers (NDI). Compared to traditional dense document retrievers, these methods leverage a generation model to produce the document indexes. By forcing the generation model to explain every token in the question and document using cross-attention, the generation abilities of the model significantly improve. Our work is closely related to these works, showing experimentally that properly prompting pretrained large language models can achieve better performance than traditional dense retrieval models (Ouyang et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.614, + 0.303, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Proposed Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.644, + 0.489, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we describe a new method, which we refer to as LLM-URL, that employs a large language model (LLM) to perform effective and efficient web document retrieval for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks such as open-domain question answering (ODQA)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ODQA is a two step process consisting of a retriever and a reader. Given a question \\( q \\), the goal of the retriever is to find the top-\\( n \\) passages \\( \\mathcal{P}_n \\) relevant to answering \\( q \\). Given \\( q \\) and the top-\\( n \\) relevant passages \\( \\mathcal{P}_n \\), the goal of the reader is to use internal knowledge along with \\( \\mathcal{P}_n \\) to generate a correct answer \\( a \\) to question \\( q \\). The passage retriever plays an essential role in this process. When \\( \\mathcal{P}_n \\) contains more passages that have the correct answer, the reader has a higher chance of finding it. Instead of heavily training a dedicated retriever," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.403, + 0.882, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "our LLM-URL solves the problem in a different way as shown in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.436, + 0.885, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a question \\( q \\), our LLM-URL should find a set of relevant passages to \\( \\mathcal{P}_n \\) and give it to the reader. First, it prompts a LLM (e.g., GPT-3) to directly generate \\( m \\) URLs for \\( q \\). By default, it uses \"Which \\( m \\) Wikipedia URLs would have the answer?\" as the instruction which is appended to each input question as the prompt. We also append the beginning of the Wikipedia URL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki) to the end of the prompt to encourage the generation of URLs and restrict generation to the Wikipedia article URL format. As LLM has the ability of in-context learning, we take this advantage to enable the few-shot setting in the prompt. The prompt described above also includes a series of in-context demonstrations. Each demonstration contains a question sampled from the training set following the prompt described above. At the end of each demonstration, \\( m \\) URLs which point to gold-labeled documents are listed. In the zero-shot setting, the original prompt is used without any demonstrations. In the few-shot setting, the original prompt appended to a series of \\( d \\) demonstrations (\\( d = 10 \\) in this work)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the prompt, the LLM returns a generated sequence of tokens. Ideally these tokens would construct a sequence of \\( m \\) separated URLs. In practice, the generated sequence often has extra information such as a proposed answer that is unreliable and needs to be filtered. We use a regular expression to extract all URLs from the sequence and discard all" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2668" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.085, + 0.475, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.245, + 0.49, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: We prompt LLM-URL to generate \\( m \\) documents and measure the recall as \\( m \\) increases. Significant recall improvements are seen when \\( m \\) is small but as it increases the marginal benefit decreases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.329, + 0.488, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "extra information. This also filters out many URLs that are improperly formatted. After extraction, GET requests are made using the extracted URLs and the contents of each retrieval is used to create a set of fetched documents \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\). Often, \\(|\\mathcal{D}_f| < m\\) because some of the generated URLs do not follow a correct format or do not point to real web pages on the Internet." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.459, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The set of fetched documents \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\) can be passed directly to a reader if \\(m\\) is a small value or the reader being used can handle many large documents. However, this is usually not the case. Often, \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\) needs to be filtered such that only a small number of the most relevant passages are given to the reader. To do this, our LLM-URL first breaks each document \\(d\\in \\mathcal{D}_f\\) into a set of small passages. The passages from each document are collected into a new set, \\(\\mathcal{P}_f\\). A scoring function is used to quantify the relevance of each passage with respect to the question \\(q\\), with high values indicating high relevance with respect to \\(q\\) and low scores indicating low relevance. A simple scoring function such as BM25 can be used or a more complex one such as DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) can. The passages in \\(\\mathcal{P}_f\\) are then sorted from highest to lowest and the top \\(n\\) are kept as \\(\\mathcal{P}_n\\). Finally, \\(\\mathcal{P}_n\\) are given to a reader along with \\(q\\) to generate an answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Advantages of LLM-URL: Existing autoregressive retrieval methods such as DSI and SEAL use a pre-trained large language model then fine tune it to take questions as input and generate relevant document identifiers as output (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Both DSI and SEAL do extensive experiments on a variety of document identifiers which are generated by a heavily trained language model. Examples of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "identifiers include unstructured atomic identifiers, naively structured string identifiers, hierarchical document clustering, and others. LLM-URL instead uses pre-existing document identifiers that exist on the internet: URLs. Using URLs instead of the aforementioned identifiers has multiple advantages. URLs often contain words related to the information they link to, allowing for strong association of topics with their URLs. For example, the title of each Wikipedia page is used in its URL, allowing the LLM is able to directly generate the URL by leveraging semantic information from the question. To validate the importance of URLs themselves, we also experiment with prompting the LLM to generate Wikipedia titles instead of URLs and find Recall@1 significantly reduces compared to prompting for URL generation. We believe this is because the URL format itself helps prompt the model for specific information in a specific format. Further, the use of URLs allows us to simply obtain the evidence document via a HTTP request without any need of training a model or building an index to find the mapping between identifiers and documents." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.483, + 0.657, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.508, + 0.884, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present and discuss results from our experiments to \"directly\" demonstrate that our LLM-URL is a strong retriever and \"indirectly\" show that it achieves competitive performance on the ODQA task against state-of-the-art solutions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.597, + 0.884, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Model: Following Figure 1, the large language model we use to generate URLs for our experiments is GPT-3 text-davinci-003 with greedy decoding and a temperature of 0. A variety of different prompts are tested for generating URLs, but little difference in performance is observed, so we simply use the best performing prompt which is discussed in Section 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.735, + 0.885, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets: We use three ODQA datasets including Web Questions, Natural Questions, and Trivia QA. We use them to perform evaluation on both the task of document or passage retrieval and ODQA itself." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.81, + 0.63, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.831, + 0.884, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We expect retrievers to find the most relevant documents and/or passages. We conduct experiments on both document retrieval and passage retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation metrics. Recall@k (k=1, 10, 100) is calculated by measuring the percentage of docu" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2669" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.082, + 0.825, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodDocument Recall@1Document Recall@10
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021)63.853.260.663.880.882.5
BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009)49.547.263.081.576.882.3
Google API61.155.551.4---
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)76.861.771.387.783.285.5
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)79.762.673.589.983.986.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.22, + 0.882, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Document retrieval as measured by Recall@k. Google API Recall@10 results are left out due to high cost." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.247, + 0.88, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodPassage Recall@1Passage Recall@10Passage Recall@100
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever18.218.834.055.754.867.979.879.683.3
BM2519.122.846.251.855.671.776.679.683.9
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)22.224.046.763.160.676.683.878.383.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)22.325.549.164.860.877.885.979.084.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.361, + 0.882, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1, Recall@10 and Recall@100. Here LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 to perform the ranking task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.412, + 0.487, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ments or passages in the top-\\(k\\) which contain one of the gold labeled answers while exact match is calculated by the percentage of predicted answers which match one of the gold labeled answers. While LLM-URL is not constrained by which URLs can be generated for document retrieval, we restrict all generations to Wikipedia URLs only for fair comparison, as discussed in Section 3 All baseline models also use Wikipedia for retrieval, with some fetching documents in real time and others fetching from an offline corpus." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.605, + 0.333, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.1 Document Retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.628, + 0.489, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines: Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021) and BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) are usually used for passage retrieval. Contriever is a dual encoder which uses a dot product between dense representations of a question and passage to calculate relevance. BM25 is a sparse retriever which uses the overlapping contents between question and passage to calculate relevance. Because we use the same passage size to chunk Wikipedia documents, we were able to map their retrieved passages back to the original documents. We use Google API (Brin and Page, 1998) restricted to Wikipedia as a third baseline to retrieve relevant documents given a question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Existing works such as DSI and SEAL have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval. DSI is a Trans" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.413, + 0.872, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.565, + 0.882, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The percentage of valid URLs generated from LLM-URL as the total number of generated URLs \\( m \\) increases from 1 to 10. As \\( m \\) increases, invalid URL generations become more frequent." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.665, + 0.884, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "former which has been trained to map directly from question to document identifiers by memorizing the contents of the entire corpus (Tay et al., 2022). SEAL is a variant of DSI which uses ngrams as document ids to improve retrieval performance (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Neither DSI nor SEAL report retrieval results on full documents and do not have publicly available implementations, so they are left out and discussed in Table 3 and Section 4.1.2 on passage retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike the baselines, our LLM-URL employs an LLM. It has two settings: zero-shot and few-shot. In the zero-shot setting, no in-context demonstrations are given whereas in the few-shot setting a few demonstrations are appended to the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2670" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodRecall@1Recall@10
DSI125.156.6
SEAL126.374.5
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)24.060.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)25.560.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.18, + 0.393, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "explicitly trained for retrieval on \\(NQ\\)" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.205, + 0.49, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1 and Recall@10. LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 for passage ranking. Other datasets are left out due to not being reported in either paper and no public implementations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.295, + 0.49, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results: The results of our document retrieval experiments are shown in Table 1. In this setting Recall@ \\(k\\) is calculated directly after the documents are retrieved with no intermediary steps. LLM-URL significantly outperforms baseline methods on all datasets for both Recall@ 1 and Recall@ 10. Specifically, zero-shot LLM-URL improves document Recall@ 1 relatively by \\(20.4\\%\\), \\(11.2\\%\\), and \\(13.2\\%\\) over the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaQA, respectively. Few-shot LLM-URL further expands the improvement to \\(24.9\\%\\), \\(12.8\\%\\), and \\(16.7\\%\\), respectively. URLs can be extracted from the large-scale parameters of LLMs, and these URLs can lead to more accurate documents than what existing methods can retrieve. Both the LLM parameters and in-context demonstrations are significantly useful in document retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.57, + 0.489, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3 shows Recall scores converge when the number of generated URLs \\( m \\) increases. Due to the diminishing returns from increasing \\( m \\), our experiments do not explore values of \\( m \\) greater than 10." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.661, + 0.49, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Are the generated URLs valid? It is worth noting that the generated URLs are not always valid. Some generated URLs do not have valid URL syntax and some point to Wikipedia pages that do not exist. Rarely, URLs will be generated for domains aside from Wikipedia. For fair comparison, all of these faulty URLs are discarded and only documents coming from valid Wikipedia articles are kept." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Further analysis is done to measure the ratio of valid Wikipedia URLs while the total number of generated URLs \\( m \\) increases from 1 to 10, shown in Figure 4. The number of valid URL generations remains surprisingly high (i.e., higher than \\( 68\\% \\)) as \\( m \\) increases from 1 to 10. However, the rate of valid generations appears to fall off as \\( m \\) increases," + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.083, + 0.88, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodZero-Shot QA EM
WebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever + InstructGPT16.819.152.4
BM25 + InstructGPT16.020.553.3
Google + InstructGPT19.927.858.7
GenRead (InstructGPT)24.828.259.3
DSI1 + FiD-31.42-
SEAL1 + FiD-43.641.8
InstructGPT (no docs.)18.620.952.6
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)28.126.460.1
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)29.027.360.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.275, + 0.79, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "explicitly trained for retrieval on \\(NQ\\)" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.289, + 0.78, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{2} \\) result from Bevilacqua et al. (2022)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.275, + 0.79, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.316, + 0.884, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Zero-shot open-domain QA performance as measured by exact match (EM). All LLM-URL models use InstructGPT as the reader unless otherwise stated." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.377, + 0.883, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "indicating there are diminishing returns from each marginal increase of \\( m \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.42, + 0.708, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.2 Passage Retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.441, + 0.885, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines: Four methods, including Contriever, BM25, DSI (Tay et al., 2022), and SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022), were introduced in Section 4.1.1. Google API was used for document retrieval and not applied to passages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.533, + 0.884, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results: The results of our passage retrieval experiments are shown in Table 2. In this setting Recall@k is calculated on the top-k passages ranked by the ranker instead of just on the raw documents shown in Table 1. LLM-URL performs slightly better than baseline methods for Recall@1 and Recall@10 and as well as baseline methods for Recall@100. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves relative Recall@1 by \\(16.2\\%\\), \\(5.3\\%\\), and \\(1.1\\%\\) with respect to the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaA respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL expands the improvement to \\(16.8\\%\\), \\(11.8\\%\\), and \\(6.3\\%\\), respectively. For Recall@10, similar improvements can be seen." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For Recall@100, performance is better relative to baseline models for all datasets except NQ. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves the relative Recall@100 by \\(5.0\\%\\) for WebQ and performs slightly worse than the best baseline method on NQ and TriviaQA by \\(1.7\\%\\) and \\(0.4\\%\\) respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL for Recall@100 shows a slight improvement on WebQ and TriviaQA, but performs slightly worse than the strongest baseline on NQ." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2671" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite being limited to only the passages from 10 documents, LLM-URL performs better than baseline methods for smaller \\( k \\) and performs as well as baseline methods for higher values of \\( k \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.49, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The comparison between LLM-URL and existing document identifier-based methods such as DSI and SEAL are shown in Table 3. For Recall@1, zero-shot LLM-URL performs slightly worse than the best baseline by \\(8.8\\%\\). This performance gap is slightly smaller in the few-shot setting with LLM-URL performing \\(3.1\\%\\) worse than the best baseline. For Recall@10, zero-shot LLM-URL performs worse than the best baseline by \\(18.7\\%\\). Few-shot LLM-URL performs only slightly better than the zero-shot setting, performing worse than the best baseline by \\(18.4\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.356, + 0.438, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Open-Domain Question Answering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.377, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation metric: We use exact match (EM), which is short for exact string match with the correct answer, because the goal of ODQA is to find an exact answer to any question using Wikipedia articles." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.468, + 0.49, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results: Here we discuss the downstream QA performance of LLM-URL. In this setting, an answer only has an exact match if the normalized generated text is within the list of acceptable answers to a question. When combined with InstructGPT as a reader, LLM-URL performs significantly better on WebQ and slightly better on TriviaQA when compared with the best performing baseline methods. On NQ, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than baseline NDIs and only slightly worse than the best remaining baseline. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT improves upon the best baseline method by \\(13.3\\%\\) and \\(1.3\\%\\) on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL +InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by \\(39.5\\%\\) on NQ. In the few-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs better than the best baseline method by \\(16.9\\%\\) and \\(2.3\\%\\) on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by \\(37.4\\%\\) on NQ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite not being explicitly trained for retrieval, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs significantly better than baseline methods for WebQ, achieves on-par performance with existing methods for TriviaQA, and performs slightly worse than existing methods for NQ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our results indicate LLM-URL could be a" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.085, + 0.872, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.217, + 0.885, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Common vs Uncommon entity recall@1. Common is defined as a question containing entities in the top-1 million most common entities on Wikipedia. LLM-URL performs much better when retrieving information about common entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.307, + 0.884, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "promising solution to retrieval for a wide range of knowledge intensive tasks with little to no training data required." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.366, + 0.649, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Discussions" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.388, + 0.75, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.1 Time Sensitive Queries" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.407, + 0.885, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are a number of additional qualitative benefits that LLM-URL has over existing methods. One large advantage of LLM-URL is that the documents are retrieved in real time from the source. So long as the source stays up to date without the URL itself changing, our proposed method is capable of answering time sensitive queries without any extra modifications." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.537, + 0.884, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast, existing dual encoder approaches such as Contriever require a document to be re-encoded each time it changes. Existing methods such as SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022) and DSI are also tricky to keep up to date for time sensitive queries as the LLM would have to be retrained to learn the new content of the updated documents." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.659, + 0.779, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.2 Frequent Entities Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following (Mallen et al., 2022), we analyze the retrieval performance of LLM-URL when the gold-labeled answer entity is common versus when it is not. For each question-answer pair in a given dataset we check to see if the labeled entity exists within the top one-million common entities from Wikipedia. Using this, we split our dataset into two distinct subsets: question-answer pairs that contain a common entity and those that do not. In measuring the performance of our model on these two distinct sets across Web Questions, Natural Questions, and TriviaQA, we find LLM-URL performs significantly better on common entity question-answer pairs. The results of our analysis are shown in Figure 5. Across all three datasets," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2672" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LLM-URLExistsAnswerContrieverAnswerBM25Answer
wiki/Jellyfish✓✓Smack (ship)✘Collective noun✘
wiki/Collective_noun✓✘Collective noun✘Determiner✘
wiki/Smack_(group)✘✘Cetacean intelligence✘Glass sea creatures✘
wiki/Cnidaria✓✓Well smack✘Minotaur✘
wiki/Medusozoa✓✓Plankton✘Mass noun✘
wiki/Scyphozoa✓✓Sperm whale✘Well smack✘
wiki/Cubozoa✓✓Loaded question✘Nomenclature✘
wiki/Hydrozoa✓✓Jabberwocky✘Archomental✘
wiki/Staurozoa✓✓Merrow✘Honey Smacks✘
wiki/Rhizostomeae✓✓Loaded question✘Well smack✘
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.276, + 0.885, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Case study of retrieved documents from the question \"A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?\". \"Exists\" means whether the URL points to a valid Wiki page. \"Answer\" means whether the document contains the answer. We omit the prefix of generated URLs for brevity (https://en.wikipedia.org/). For BM25 and Contriever, we show the document titles of the top-10 retrieved passages, respectively. The correct answer is \"jellyfish.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.373, + 0.489, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the recall of common-entity question-answer pairs is many times greater than the recall from the rest of the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.422, + 0.49, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous work has shown LLMs in the closed-book setting, where the model must rely solely on the information contained within its weights, perform much better on common-entities versus uncommon ones (Mallen et al., 2022). Our results show this problem extends beyond the closed-book setting and also applies to retrieval when using LLM-URL. This also could explain the high word count from documents we found when evaluating LLM-URL. The average Wikipedia article is 644 words, but the average word count from Wikipedia documents retrieved via LLM-URL was \\(10\\mathrm{k}\\). We believe this discrepancy is caused by common entities having much more detail in their Wikipedia articles and in turn having much higher word count." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.674, + 0.265, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.3 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.694, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 5, we show a case study comparing LLMURL with two baseline retrieval methods, BM25 and Contriever, on the question \"A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?\" which is in the TriviaQA test set. The gold-labeled answer to this question is \"jellyfish\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the closed-book setting, InstructGPT mistakenly predicts \"dolphins\" as the answer. When using Contriever to retrieve 10 passages from Wikipedia given the query, none of the passages contains the gold answer. For instance, Contriever retrieves passages about \"smack\", a kind of fishing vessel, along with other passages about sperm whales, plankton, and other unrelated topics. Similar results are" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.373, + 0.816, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "found while using BM25 as the retriever." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.397, + 0.885, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast, LLM-URL performs much better in this scenario, retrieving 7 documents which contain the answer. The top retrieved document is exactly about the gold answer \"jellyfish\". The fourth to the tenth documents all talk about different types of jellyfish. After being chunked into passages then sorted by the ranker, the top 10 passages are concatenated. Among them, it contains \"A group of jellyfish is called a smack,\" which contains the answer to the question and comes directly from the first retrieved document, titled \"jellyfish.\" When InstructGPT is then prompted with these 10 passages along with the question, the gold answer \"jellyfish\" is correctly generated." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This case study highlights multiple advantages of LLM-URL. First, LLM-URL finds documents related to both the question and the answer. It directly locates documents that talks about \"jellyfish\" instead while BM25 and Contriever locate documents related to the question only—not the answer. Second, LLM-URL is more precise than BM25 or Contriever. In this case, 7 out of 10 generated URLs from LLM-URL point to a Wikipedia document that contains the answer. However, both BM25 and Contriever fail to retrieve any documents containing the answer. Third, the set of documents retrieved by LLM-URL are complementary to each other, while in BM25 or contriever, each document in the top-10 is selected independently. This is because the LLM is able to refer to previous generated URLs before it generates the next one, allowing each newly generated URL to be condi" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2673" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tioned on all the previous URLs. This leads to a more informative evidence context in open-domain question answering." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.146, + 0.403, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion and Future Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.172, + 0.49, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we explored whether large language models can generate URLs prompted by human instructions for document retrieval. Surprisingly, we found that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as in-context demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generated Web URLs where near \\(90\\%\\) of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions in WebQ. Furthermore, by breaking the retrieved documents into passages then ranking them with BM25, we showed a significant number of unnecessary passages could be filtered out while retaining high recall, which outperformed baseline methods by a significant margin." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.398, + 0.49, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are numerous exciting directions for future work. While a number of broad spectrum retrieval benchmarks such as BIER (Thakur et al., 2021) exist, it remains to be seen whether the few-shot demonstrations shown in this work can be further tuned for specific retrieval tasks. Promptagator (Dai et al., 2022) shows significant performance improvements can be achieved by tuning prompts in a similar way." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Further, it remains to be seen whether fine tuning the prompt for each individual question can further improve the retrieval performance. As with Promptagator, prior work has shown using clustering to select diverse demonstrations for any given question further improves retrieval performance as well as downstream QA performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.669, + 0.221, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the strong performance on the presented datasets, our approach is limited in its ability to update knowledge state and adapt to new domains. A major feature of retrieve-then-read is the ability to swap in new documents when new information is learned, such as temporally more recent documents, or adding in documents from a new domain to quickly adapt to a new downstream task. Our approach relies on a large language model to contain all this knowledge and adding new knowledge would likely require some retraining. In addition, large generation models still suffer from hallucination errors, resulting in incorrect predictions. When tasked with generating 10 URLs, LLM-URL may" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "only generate 6 or 7 which link to valid documents. Finally, our approach involves very large language models, slow web requests, and document processing which may make it cumbersome to use in practice." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.179, + 0.685, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.205, + 0.886, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by NSF IIS-2119531, IIS-2137396, IIS-2142827, CCF-1901059, and ONR N00014-22-1-2507. Wenhao Yu was partly supported by the Bloomberg Data Science Fellowship." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.298, + 0.61, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.322, + 0.886, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP, pages 1533-1544." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.386, + 0.886, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michele Bevilacqua, Giuseppe Ottaviano, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2022. Autoregressive search engines: Generating substrings as document identifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10628." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.464, + 0.886, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on World Wide Web 7, WWW7, page 107-117, NLD. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.542, + 0.886, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Procs. of ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.594, + 0.886, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y. Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith B. Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2022. Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11755." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.672, + 0.886, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2020. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.736, + 0.886, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.8, + 0.886, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In ACL, pages 1601-1611." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.866, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingxuan Ju, Wenhao Yu, Tong Zhao, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2022. Grape: Knowledge graph enhanced passage reader for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02933." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.322, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2674" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.173, + 0.487, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Omar Khattab, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2021. Relevance-guided supervision for openqa with colbert. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:929-944." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.234, + 0.487, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over bert. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, pages 39-48." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.321, + 0.487, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. TACL, pages 452-466." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.407, + 0.487, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint ArXiv:2212.10511." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.494, + 0.487, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of ACLIJCNLP." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.568, + 0.487, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yasumasa Onoe, Michael J. Q. Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2021. CREAM: A dataset for commonsense reasoning over entity knowledge. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.642, + 0.487, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.728, + 0.487, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, et al. 2021. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2523-2544." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.841, + 0.487, + 0.907 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Rocketqa: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Procs. of NAACL." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.907 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen E. Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.882, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Vinh Q Tran, Mostafa Dehghani, Jianmo Ni, Dara Bahri, Harsh Mehta, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Zhe Zhao, Jai Gupta, et al. 2022. Transformer memory as a differentiable search index. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06991." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.225, + 0.882, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rückle, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.313, + 0.882, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yujing Wang, Yingyan Hou, Haonan Wang, Ziming Miao, Shibin Wu, Hao Sun, Qi Chen, Yuqing Xia, Chengmin Chi, Guoshuai Zhao, Zheng Liu, Xing Xie, Hao Sun, Weiwei Deng, Qi Zhang, and Mao Yang. 2022. A neural corpus indexer for document retrieval. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.415, + 0.882, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul N Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2020. Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.504, + 0.882, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL 2019 (demo)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.567, + 0.882, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2021. Kg-fid: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04330." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.655, + 0.882, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.744, + 0.882, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Zaitang Li, Zhiting Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.807, + 0.882, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Xiubo Geng, Tao Qin, Yunfang Wu, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Knowledge-aware procedural text understanding with multi-stage training. In WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2675" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Zheng Ning, Mingxuan Ju, and Meng Jiang. 2023a. Exploring contrast consistency of open-domain question answering systems on minimally edited questions. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.159, + 0.49, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Mengxia Yu, Zhichun Guo, and Meng Jiang. 2023b. A survey of multi-task learning in natural language processing: Regarding task relatedness and training methods. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2023." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.259, + 0.488, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A unified encoder-decoder framework" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with entity memory. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.136, + 0.885, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Ruiyang Ren, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Dense text retrieval based on pretrained language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14876." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.198, + 0.885, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Chao Wang, Jianming Zheng, Soujanya Poria, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Retrieving and reading: A comprehensive survey on open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00774." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2676" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.534, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.145, + 0.723, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our limitations section is not numbered, but it is the last section of our paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.171, + 0.554, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.188, + 0.739, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We do not believe any of the risks mentioned in the checklist apply to this paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.697, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.231, + 0.71, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our introduction is found in section one and the abstract comes before that." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.257, + 0.67, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.274, + 0.233, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.216, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.348, + 0.531, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.365, + 0.249, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.408, + 0.249, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.499, + 0.249, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.575, + 0.249, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.634, + 0.249, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.741, + 0.249, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.495, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.787, + 0.402, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 describes our experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.847, + 0.882, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yes these details are found in a graph in Section 1 and hyperparameters are found in our experiments section (4)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.885, + 0.878, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2677" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.118, + 0.512, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yes we discuss our hyperparameters in section 4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.144, + 0.883, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.193, + 0.64, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method is deterministic so there is no variation in our results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.219, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.268, + 0.351, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.883, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.375, + 0.25, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.45, + 0.25, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.476, + 0.883, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.525, + 0.25, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.55, + 0.875, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.568, + 0.25, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.593, + 0.882, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.627, + 0.25, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2678" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_origin.pdf b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c1ba0e798829c5d78ea22608e07789d92fb9280 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/5ad13cc6-938f-4faa-8252-ed3a3053bd31_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3ec8b2c95b16ecf9636afc2f8d5349e92eb27f4f57dd09e20f6d633736d1640f +size 351872 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/full.md b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11b8d90eaddf8f8cfe503241e6e4fe63f5a997b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,343 @@ +# Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines + +Noah Ziems, Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Meng Jiang + +University of Notre Dame + +{nziems2, wyu1, zzhang23, mjiang2}@nd.edu + +# Abstract + +Document retrieval is a key stage of standard Web search engines. Existing dual-encoder dense retrievers obtain representations for questions and documents independently, allowing for only shallow interactions between them. To overcome this limitation, recent autoregressive search engines replace the dual-encoder architecture by directly generating identifiers for relevant documents in the candidate pool. However, the training cost of such autoregressive search engines rises sharply as the number of candidate documents increases. In this paper, we find that large language models (LLMs) can follow human instructions to directly generate URLs for document retrieval. + +Surprisingly, when providing a few Query-URL pairs as in-context demonstrations, LLMs can generate Web URLs where nearly $90\%$ of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, since they have not been explicitly trained to map questions to document identifiers. Experiments demonstrate that our method can consistently achieve better retrieval performance than existing retrieval approaches by a significant margin on three open-domain question answering benchmarks, under both zero and few-shot settings. The code for this work can be found at https://github.com/Ziems/11murl. + +# 1 Introduction + +Along with the success of deep learning, dual-encoder based retrievers have become the dominant method for Web searching (Zhu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) employs two independent encoders to encode the question and the document respectively, then estimates their relevance by computing a single similarity score between two representations. + +![](images/b725b6eeb0bb4c8fec22b43fb9d59a66810c6de179073bf69496d6b7d510085c.jpg) +Figure 1: Successful URL reconstructions by different size of GPT-3 as URL generators. The models are prompted with the first 100 words of a Wikipedia page then tasked with generating the URL of the page they came from. Tested on 10k Wikipedia pages sampled from the top 100k most frequent Wikipedia entities. + +However, these methods suffer from two major drawbacks. First, the representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021). Second, the question or document representation is embedded into a single dense vector, potentially missing fine-grained information when computing the similarity between the two vector representations (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020). + +Instead of computing similarity between question and document embeddings, autoregressive search engines aim to directly generate document identifiers then map them to complete documents in the predetermined candidate pool. This approach has attracted increasing interest in information retrieval (IR) and related fields (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Compared to dual-encoder dense retrieval methods, autoregressive search engines enjoy a number of advantages. First, autoregressive generation models produce document identifiers by performing deep token-level cross-attention, resulting in a better esti + +mation than shallow interactions in dense retrievers. Second, autoregressive search engines have been shown to have strong generalization abilities, outperforming BM25 in a zero-shot setting (Tay et al., 2022). While it is theoretically possible to scale an autoregressive search engine to the size of a large language model (LLM), such as GPT-3 with 175B parameters, in practice it is not feasible due to the computational overhead of training such a large autoregressive search engine from scratch (Tay et al., 2022). To reduce the high training cost of autoregressive search engine, a smaller model size is preferred. However, the results of our pilot study in Figure 1 show smaller language models are significantly worse at mapping passages to document identifiers than larger ones. Moreover, different retrieval tasks can have unique retrieval requirements. One task may require a model to retrieve factual evidence to support or refute a claim (i.e., fact checking) (Onoe et al., 2021) while another may require a model to retrieve specific trivia information about an entity (i.e., entity linking) (Petroni et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). It would be better if the retriever was capable of generalizing to new retrieval tasks with only a few examples. + +In this work, we explore the use of in-context demonstrations to prompt LLMs to directly generate web URLs for document retrieval, namely LLM-URL. Surprisingly, we find that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as contextual demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generate Web URLs where nearly $90\%$ of the corresponding documents contain answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, as they have not been explicitly trained to map questions or documents to identifiers. Instead of using newly-created document identifiers, LLM-URL leverages existing and widely used document identifiers directly, i.e., URLs. We compare our approach to existing document retrieval methods on three different open-domain question answering (QA) datasets: WebQ (Berant et al., 2013), NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). Further, to avoid exceeding the limit on the number of input tokens of LLMs, we employ an unsupervised passage filtering module to remove irrelevant portions of supporting documents. To summarize, our main contributions are as follows: + +1. We reveal that LLMs are built-in autoregressive search engines capable of document re + +trieval by directly generating Web page URLs under both zero and few-shot settings. + +2. We show retrieving documents by generating URLs with LLMs significantly outperforms existing methods for document retrieval, as measured by Recall@K. Further, we show that breaking the retrieved documents into passages then using a ranker to filter the passages significantly reduces the number of supporting passages while maintaining high recall. +3. We show the retrieved documents improve downstream QA performance as measured by EM when compared to baseline methods. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Traditional Document Retrievers + +Traditional methods such as TF-IDF and BM25 explore sparse retrieval strategies by matching the overlapping contents between questions and passages (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009; Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019). DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) revolutionized the field by utilizing dense contextualized vectors for passage indexing. It is first initialized as a pretrained BERT model, then trained discriminatively using pairs of queries and relevant documents, with hard negatives from BM25. Recent research has improved DPR via better training strategies (Xiong et al., 2020; Qu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and passage reranking (Mao et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2022). However, representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021). + +# 2.2 Autoregressive Search Engines + +Recent works have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval (Yu et al., 2022), such as Wikipedia page titles (De Cao et al., 2020), root-to-leaf paths in a hierarchical cluster tree (Tay et al., 2022), or distinctive n-grams that can be mapped to full passages (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Since the series of work was carried out almost simultaneously by different research groups, they are often referred to multiple different names in the literature, such as autoregressive search engine, differential search + +![](images/7540f9a910fe0e5c49b5d563c3b8ac3d1edb7d73029dc79bacf73a44116925d3.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our proposed LLM-URL. Given a question, LLM-URL first generates a set of URLs which are extracted from the generated text. The URLs are retrieved from the Internet then broken into passages which are ranked and filtered such that only the most relevant are kept. Finally, these passages are given as input to a reader model along with the original question to generate a final answer. + +index (DSI), and neural document indexers (NDI). Compared to traditional dense document retrievers, these methods leverage a generation model to produce the document indexes. By forcing the generation model to explain every token in the question and document using cross-attention, the generation abilities of the model significantly improve. Our work is closely related to these works, showing experimentally that properly prompting pretrained large language models can achieve better performance than traditional dense retrieval models (Ouyang et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023). + +# 3 Proposed Method + +In this section we describe a new method, which we refer to as LLM-URL, that employs a large language model (LLM) to perform effective and efficient web document retrieval for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks such as open-domain question answering (ODQA). + +ODQA is a two step process consisting of a retriever and a reader. Given a question $q$ , the goal of the retriever is to find the top- $n$ passages $\mathcal{P}_n$ relevant to answering $q$ . Given $q$ and the top- $n$ relevant passages $\mathcal{P}_n$ , the goal of the reader is to use internal knowledge along with $\mathcal{P}_n$ to generate a correct answer $a$ to question $q$ . The passage retriever plays an essential role in this process. When $\mathcal{P}_n$ contains more passages that have the correct answer, the reader has a higher chance of finding it. Instead of heavily training a dedicated retriever, + +our LLM-URL solves the problem in a different way as shown in Figure 2. + +Given a question $q$ , our LLM-URL should find a set of relevant passages to $\mathcal{P}_n$ and give it to the reader. First, it prompts a LLM (e.g., GPT-3) to directly generate $m$ URLs for $q$ . By default, it uses "Which $m$ Wikipedia URLs would have the answer?" as the instruction which is appended to each input question as the prompt. We also append the beginning of the Wikipedia URL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki) to the end of the prompt to encourage the generation of URLs and restrict generation to the Wikipedia article URL format. As LLM has the ability of in-context learning, we take this advantage to enable the few-shot setting in the prompt. The prompt described above also includes a series of in-context demonstrations. Each demonstration contains a question sampled from the training set following the prompt described above. At the end of each demonstration, $m$ URLs which point to gold-labeled documents are listed. In the zero-shot setting, the original prompt is used without any demonstrations. In the few-shot setting, the original prompt appended to a series of $d$ demonstrations ( $d = 10$ in this work). + +Given the prompt, the LLM returns a generated sequence of tokens. Ideally these tokens would construct a sequence of $m$ separated URLs. In practice, the generated sequence often has extra information such as a proposed answer that is unreliable and needs to be filtered. We use a regular expression to extract all URLs from the sequence and discard all + +![](images/3260e19d454d230dc81631c9710f061a8102941ef3061fe05ef34c5c54febd48.jpg) +Figure 3: We prompt LLM-URL to generate $m$ documents and measure the recall as $m$ increases. Significant recall improvements are seen when $m$ is small but as it increases the marginal benefit decreases. + +extra information. This also filters out many URLs that are improperly formatted. After extraction, GET requests are made using the extracted URLs and the contents of each retrieval is used to create a set of fetched documents $\mathcal{D}_f$ . Often, $|\mathcal{D}_f| < m$ because some of the generated URLs do not follow a correct format or do not point to real web pages on the Internet. + +The set of fetched documents $\mathcal{D}_f$ can be passed directly to a reader if $m$ is a small value or the reader being used can handle many large documents. However, this is usually not the case. Often, $\mathcal{D}_f$ needs to be filtered such that only a small number of the most relevant passages are given to the reader. To do this, our LLM-URL first breaks each document $d\in \mathcal{D}_f$ into a set of small passages. The passages from each document are collected into a new set, $\mathcal{P}_f$ . A scoring function is used to quantify the relevance of each passage with respect to the question $q$ , with high values indicating high relevance with respect to $q$ and low scores indicating low relevance. A simple scoring function such as BM25 can be used or a more complex one such as DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) can. The passages in $\mathcal{P}_f$ are then sorted from highest to lowest and the top $n$ are kept as $\mathcal{P}_n$ . Finally, $\mathcal{P}_n$ are given to a reader along with $q$ to generate an answer. + +Advantages of LLM-URL: Existing autoregressive retrieval methods such as DSI and SEAL use a pre-trained large language model then fine tune it to take questions as input and generate relevant document identifiers as output (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Both DSI and SEAL do extensive experiments on a variety of document identifiers which are generated by a heavily trained language model. Examples of these + +identifiers include unstructured atomic identifiers, naively structured string identifiers, hierarchical document clustering, and others. LLM-URL instead uses pre-existing document identifiers that exist on the internet: URLs. Using URLs instead of the aforementioned identifiers has multiple advantages. URLs often contain words related to the information they link to, allowing for strong association of topics with their URLs. For example, the title of each Wikipedia page is used in its URL, allowing the LLM is able to directly generate the URL by leveraging semantic information from the question. To validate the importance of URLs themselves, we also experiment with prompting the LLM to generate Wikipedia titles instead of URLs and find Recall@1 significantly reduces compared to prompting for URL generation. We believe this is because the URL format itself helps prompt the model for specific information in a specific format. Further, the use of URLs allows us to simply obtain the evidence document via a HTTP request without any need of training a model or building an index to find the mapping between identifiers and documents. + +# 4 Experiments + +In this section, we present and discuss results from our experiments to "directly" demonstrate that our LLM-URL is a strong retriever and "indirectly" show that it achieves competitive performance on the ODQA task against state-of-the-art solutions. + +Large Language Model: Following Figure 1, the large language model we use to generate URLs for our experiments is GPT-3 text-davinci-003 with greedy decoding and a temperature of 0. A variety of different prompts are tested for generating URLs, but little difference in performance is observed, so we simply use the best performing prompt which is discussed in Section 3. + +Datasets: We use three ODQA datasets including Web Questions, Natural Questions, and Trivia QA. We use them to perform evaluation on both the task of document or passage retrieval and ODQA itself. + +# 4.1 Retrieval + +We expect retrievers to find the most relevant documents and/or passages. We conduct experiments on both document retrieval and passage retrieval. + +Evaluation metrics. Recall@k (k=1, 10, 100) is calculated by measuring the percentage of docu + +
MethodDocument Recall@1Document Recall@10
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021)63.853.260.663.880.882.5
BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009)49.547.263.081.576.882.3
Google API61.155.551.4---
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)76.861.771.387.783.285.5
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)79.762.673.589.983.986.8
+ +Table 1: Document retrieval as measured by Recall@k. Google API Recall@10 results are left out due to high cost. + +
MethodPassage Recall@1Passage Recall@10Passage Recall@100
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever18.218.834.055.754.867.979.879.683.3
BM2519.122.846.251.855.671.776.679.683.9
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)22.224.046.763.160.676.683.878.383.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)22.325.549.164.860.877.885.979.084.8
+ +Table 2: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1, Recall@10 and Recall@100. Here LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 to perform the ranking task. + +ments or passages in the top- $k$ which contain one of the gold labeled answers while exact match is calculated by the percentage of predicted answers which match one of the gold labeled answers. While LLM-URL is not constrained by which URLs can be generated for document retrieval, we restrict all generations to Wikipedia URLs only for fair comparison, as discussed in Section 3 All baseline models also use Wikipedia for retrieval, with some fetching documents in real time and others fetching from an offline corpus. + +# 4.1.1 Document Retrieval + +Baselines: Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021) and BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) are usually used for passage retrieval. Contriever is a dual encoder which uses a dot product between dense representations of a question and passage to calculate relevance. BM25 is a sparse retriever which uses the overlapping contents between question and passage to calculate relevance. Because we use the same passage size to chunk Wikipedia documents, we were able to map their retrieved passages back to the original documents. We use Google API (Brin and Page, 1998) restricted to Wikipedia as a third baseline to retrieve relevant documents given a question. + +Existing works such as DSI and SEAL have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval. DSI is a Trans + +![](images/7674bfd1c6b411da4e763a3ede02f9db0683419879860ff49aebaeb7006e9990.jpg) +Figure 4: The percentage of valid URLs generated from LLM-URL as the total number of generated URLs $m$ increases from 1 to 10. As $m$ increases, invalid URL generations become more frequent. + +former which has been trained to map directly from question to document identifiers by memorizing the contents of the entire corpus (Tay et al., 2022). SEAL is a variant of DSI which uses ngrams as document ids to improve retrieval performance (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Neither DSI nor SEAL report retrieval results on full documents and do not have publicly available implementations, so they are left out and discussed in Table 3 and Section 4.1.2 on passage retrieval. + +Unlike the baselines, our LLM-URL employs an LLM. It has two settings: zero-shot and few-shot. In the zero-shot setting, no in-context demonstrations are given whereas in the few-shot setting a few demonstrations are appended to the prompt. + +
MethodRecall@1Recall@10
DSI125.156.6
SEAL126.374.5
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)24.060.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)25.560.8
+ +explicitly trained for retrieval on $NQ$ +Table 3: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1 and Recall@10. LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 for passage ranking. Other datasets are left out due to not being reported in either paper and no public implementations. + +Results: The results of our document retrieval experiments are shown in Table 1. In this setting Recall@ $k$ is calculated directly after the documents are retrieved with no intermediary steps. LLM-URL significantly outperforms baseline methods on all datasets for both Recall@ 1 and Recall@ 10. Specifically, zero-shot LLM-URL improves document Recall@ 1 relatively by $20.4\%$ , $11.2\%$ , and $13.2\%$ over the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaQA, respectively. Few-shot LLM-URL further expands the improvement to $24.9\%$ , $12.8\%$ , and $16.7\%$ , respectively. URLs can be extracted from the large-scale parameters of LLMs, and these URLs can lead to more accurate documents than what existing methods can retrieve. Both the LLM parameters and in-context demonstrations are significantly useful in document retrieval. + +Figure 3 shows Recall scores converge when the number of generated URLs $m$ increases. Due to the diminishing returns from increasing $m$ , our experiments do not explore values of $m$ greater than 10. + +Are the generated URLs valid? It is worth noting that the generated URLs are not always valid. Some generated URLs do not have valid URL syntax and some point to Wikipedia pages that do not exist. Rarely, URLs will be generated for domains aside from Wikipedia. For fair comparison, all of these faulty URLs are discarded and only documents coming from valid Wikipedia articles are kept. + +Further analysis is done to measure the ratio of valid Wikipedia URLs while the total number of generated URLs $m$ increases from 1 to 10, shown in Figure 4. The number of valid URL generations remains surprisingly high (i.e., higher than $68\%$ ) as $m$ increases from 1 to 10. However, the rate of valid generations appears to fall off as $m$ increases, + +
MethodZero-Shot QA EM
WebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever + InstructGPT16.819.152.4
BM25 + InstructGPT16.020.553.3
Google + InstructGPT19.927.858.7
GenRead (InstructGPT)24.828.259.3
DSI1 + FiD-31.42-
SEAL1 + FiD-43.641.8
InstructGPT (no docs.)18.620.952.6
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)28.126.460.1
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)29.027.360.7
+ +explicitly trained for retrieval on $NQ$ +${}^{2}$ result from Bevilacqua et al. (2022) + +Table 4: Zero-shot open-domain QA performance as measured by exact match (EM). All LLM-URL models use InstructGPT as the reader unless otherwise stated. + +indicating there are diminishing returns from each marginal increase of $m$ . + +# 4.1.2 Passage Retrieval + +Baselines: Four methods, including Contriever, BM25, DSI (Tay et al., 2022), and SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022), were introduced in Section 4.1.1. Google API was used for document retrieval and not applied to passages. + +Results: The results of our passage retrieval experiments are shown in Table 2. In this setting Recall@k is calculated on the top-k passages ranked by the ranker instead of just on the raw documents shown in Table 1. LLM-URL performs slightly better than baseline methods for Recall@1 and Recall@10 and as well as baseline methods for Recall@100. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves relative Recall@1 by $16.2\%$ , $5.3\%$ , and $1.1\%$ with respect to the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaA respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL expands the improvement to $16.8\%$ , $11.8\%$ , and $6.3\%$ , respectively. For Recall@10, similar improvements can be seen. + +For Recall@100, performance is better relative to baseline models for all datasets except NQ. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves the relative Recall@100 by $5.0\%$ for WebQ and performs slightly worse than the best baseline method on NQ and TriviaQA by $1.7\%$ and $0.4\%$ respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL for Recall@100 shows a slight improvement on WebQ and TriviaQA, but performs slightly worse than the strongest baseline on NQ. + +Despite being limited to only the passages from 10 documents, LLM-URL performs better than baseline methods for smaller $k$ and performs as well as baseline methods for higher values of $k$ . + +The comparison between LLM-URL and existing document identifier-based methods such as DSI and SEAL are shown in Table 3. For Recall@1, zero-shot LLM-URL performs slightly worse than the best baseline by $8.8\%$ . This performance gap is slightly smaller in the few-shot setting with LLM-URL performing $3.1\%$ worse than the best baseline. For Recall@10, zero-shot LLM-URL performs worse than the best baseline by $18.7\%$ . Few-shot LLM-URL performs only slightly better than the zero-shot setting, performing worse than the best baseline by $18.4\%$ . + +# 4.2 Open-Domain Question Answering + +Evaluation metric: We use exact match (EM), which is short for exact string match with the correct answer, because the goal of ODQA is to find an exact answer to any question using Wikipedia articles. + +Results: Here we discuss the downstream QA performance of LLM-URL. In this setting, an answer only has an exact match if the normalized generated text is within the list of acceptable answers to a question. When combined with InstructGPT as a reader, LLM-URL performs significantly better on WebQ and slightly better on TriviaQA when compared with the best performing baseline methods. On NQ, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than baseline NDIs and only slightly worse than the best remaining baseline. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT improves upon the best baseline method by $13.3\%$ and $1.3\%$ on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL +InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by $39.5\%$ on NQ. In the few-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs better than the best baseline method by $16.9\%$ and $2.3\%$ on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by $37.4\%$ on NQ. + +Despite not being explicitly trained for retrieval, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs significantly better than baseline methods for WebQ, achieves on-par performance with existing methods for TriviaQA, and performs slightly worse than existing methods for NQ. + +Our results indicate LLM-URL could be a + +![](images/b7887a0892fe8a7cfc6e5afdb3b4f2e5d2dbe3e70cf41412cdf9808e30303ebd.jpg) +Figure 5: Common vs Uncommon entity recall@1. Common is defined as a question containing entities in the top-1 million most common entities on Wikipedia. LLM-URL performs much better when retrieving information about common entities. + +promising solution to retrieval for a wide range of knowledge intensive tasks with little to no training data required. + +# 4.3 Discussions + +# 4.3.1 Time Sensitive Queries + +There are a number of additional qualitative benefits that LLM-URL has over existing methods. One large advantage of LLM-URL is that the documents are retrieved in real time from the source. So long as the source stays up to date without the URL itself changing, our proposed method is capable of answering time sensitive queries without any extra modifications. + +In contrast, existing dual encoder approaches such as Contriever require a document to be re-encoded each time it changes. Existing methods such as SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022) and DSI are also tricky to keep up to date for time sensitive queries as the LLM would have to be retrained to learn the new content of the updated documents. + +# 4.3.2 Frequent Entities Analysis + +Following (Mallen et al., 2022), we analyze the retrieval performance of LLM-URL when the gold-labeled answer entity is common versus when it is not. For each question-answer pair in a given dataset we check to see if the labeled entity exists within the top one-million common entities from Wikipedia. Using this, we split our dataset into two distinct subsets: question-answer pairs that contain a common entity and those that do not. In measuring the performance of our model on these two distinct sets across Web Questions, Natural Questions, and TriviaQA, we find LLM-URL performs significantly better on common entity question-answer pairs. The results of our analysis are shown in Figure 5. Across all three datasets, + +
LLM-URLExistsAnswerContrieverAnswerBM25Answer
wiki/Jellyfish✓✓Smack (ship)✘Collective noun✘
wiki/Collective_noun✓✘Collective noun✘Determiner✘
wiki/Smack_(group)✘✘Cetacean intelligence✘Glass sea creatures✘
wiki/Cnidaria✓✓Well smack✘Minotaur✘
wiki/Medusozoa✓✓Plankton✘Mass noun✘
wiki/Scyphozoa✓✓Sperm whale✘Well smack✘
wiki/Cubozoa✓✓Loaded question✘Nomenclature✘
wiki/Hydrozoa✓✓Jabberwocky✘Archomental✘
wiki/Staurozoa✓✓Merrow✘Honey Smacks✘
wiki/Rhizostomeae✓✓Loaded question✘Well smack✘
+ +Table 5: Case study of retrieved documents from the question "A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?". "Exists" means whether the URL points to a valid Wiki page. "Answer" means whether the document contains the answer. We omit the prefix of generated URLs for brevity (https://en.wikipedia.org/). For BM25 and Contriever, we show the document titles of the top-10 retrieved passages, respectively. The correct answer is "jellyfish." + +the recall of common-entity question-answer pairs is many times greater than the recall from the rest of the dataset. + +Previous work has shown LLMs in the closed-book setting, where the model must rely solely on the information contained within its weights, perform much better on common-entities versus uncommon ones (Mallen et al., 2022). Our results show this problem extends beyond the closed-book setting and also applies to retrieval when using LLM-URL. This also could explain the high word count from documents we found when evaluating LLM-URL. The average Wikipedia article is 644 words, but the average word count from Wikipedia documents retrieved via LLM-URL was $10\mathrm{k}$ . We believe this discrepancy is caused by common entities having much more detail in their Wikipedia articles and in turn having much higher word count. + +# 4.3.3 Case Study + +In Table 5, we show a case study comparing LLMURL with two baseline retrieval methods, BM25 and Contriever, on the question "A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?" which is in the TriviaQA test set. The gold-labeled answer to this question is "jellyfish". + +In the closed-book setting, InstructGPT mistakenly predicts "dolphins" as the answer. When using Contriever to retrieve 10 passages from Wikipedia given the query, none of the passages contains the gold answer. For instance, Contriever retrieves passages about "smack", a kind of fishing vessel, along with other passages about sperm whales, plankton, and other unrelated topics. Similar results are + +found while using BM25 as the retriever. + +In contrast, LLM-URL performs much better in this scenario, retrieving 7 documents which contain the answer. The top retrieved document is exactly about the gold answer "jellyfish". The fourth to the tenth documents all talk about different types of jellyfish. After being chunked into passages then sorted by the ranker, the top 10 passages are concatenated. Among them, it contains "A group of jellyfish is called a smack," which contains the answer to the question and comes directly from the first retrieved document, titled "jellyfish." When InstructGPT is then prompted with these 10 passages along with the question, the gold answer "jellyfish" is correctly generated. + +This case study highlights multiple advantages of LLM-URL. First, LLM-URL finds documents related to both the question and the answer. It directly locates documents that talks about "jellyfish" instead while BM25 and Contriever locate documents related to the question only—not the answer. Second, LLM-URL is more precise than BM25 or Contriever. In this case, 7 out of 10 generated URLs from LLM-URL point to a Wikipedia document that contains the answer. However, both BM25 and Contriever fail to retrieve any documents containing the answer. Third, the set of documents retrieved by LLM-URL are complementary to each other, while in BM25 or contriever, each document in the top-10 is selected independently. This is because the LLM is able to refer to previous generated URLs before it generates the next one, allowing each newly generated URL to be condi + +tioned on all the previous URLs. This leads to a more informative evidence context in open-domain question answering. + +# 5 Conclusion and Future Work + +In this paper, we explored whether large language models can generate URLs prompted by human instructions for document retrieval. Surprisingly, we found that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as in-context demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generated Web URLs where near $90\%$ of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions in WebQ. Furthermore, by breaking the retrieved documents into passages then ranking them with BM25, we showed a significant number of unnecessary passages could be filtered out while retaining high recall, which outperformed baseline methods by a significant margin. + +There are numerous exciting directions for future work. While a number of broad spectrum retrieval benchmarks such as BIER (Thakur et al., 2021) exist, it remains to be seen whether the few-shot demonstrations shown in this work can be further tuned for specific retrieval tasks. Promptagator (Dai et al., 2022) shows significant performance improvements can be achieved by tuning prompts in a similar way. + +Further, it remains to be seen whether fine tuning the prompt for each individual question can further improve the retrieval performance. As with Promptagator, prior work has shown using clustering to select diverse demonstrations for any given question further improves retrieval performance as well as downstream QA performance. + +# Limitations + +Despite the strong performance on the presented datasets, our approach is limited in its ability to update knowledge state and adapt to new domains. A major feature of retrieve-then-read is the ability to swap in new documents when new information is learned, such as temporally more recent documents, or adding in documents from a new domain to quickly adapt to a new downstream task. Our approach relies on a large language model to contain all this knowledge and adding new knowledge would likely require some retraining. In addition, large generation models still suffer from hallucination errors, resulting in incorrect predictions. When tasked with generating 10 URLs, LLM-URL may + +only generate 6 or 7 which link to valid documents. Finally, our approach involves very large language models, slow web requests, and document processing which may make it cumbersome to use in practice. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by NSF IIS-2119531, IIS-2137396, IIS-2142827, CCF-1901059, and ONR N00014-22-1-2507. Wenhao Yu was partly supported by the Bloomberg Data Science Fellowship. + +# References + +Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP, pages 1533-1544. +Michele Bevilacqua, Giuseppe Ottaviano, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2022. Autoregressive search engines: Generating substrings as document identifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10628. +Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on World Wide Web 7, WWW7, page 107-117, NLD. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. +Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Procs. of ACL. +Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y. Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith B. Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2022. Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11755. +Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2020. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning. +Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In ACL, pages 1601-1611. +Mingxuan Ju, Wenhao Yu, Tong Zhao, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2022. Grape: Knowledge graph enhanced passage reader for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02933. + +Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). +Omar Khattab, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2021. Relevance-guided supervision for openqa with colbert. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:929-944. +Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over bert. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, pages 39-48. +Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. TACL, pages 452-466. +Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint ArXiv:2212.10511. +Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of ACLIJCNLP. +Yasumasa Onoe, Michael J. Q. Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2021. CREAM: A dataset for commonsense reasoning over entity knowledge. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS. +Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155. +Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, et al. 2021. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2523-2544. +Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Rocketqa: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Procs. of NAACL. + +Stephen E. Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389. +Yi Tay, Vinh Q Tran, Mostafa Dehghani, Jianmo Ni, Dara Bahri, Harsh Mehta, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Zhe Zhao, Jai Gupta, et al. 2022. Transformer memory as a differentiable search index. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06991. +Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rückle, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2). +Yujing Wang, Yingyan Hou, Haonan Wang, Ziming Miao, Shibin Wu, Hao Sun, Qi Chen, Yuqing Xia, Chengmin Chi, Guoshuai Zhao, Zheng Liu, Xing Xie, Hao Sun, Weiwei Deng, Qi Zhang, and Mao Yang. 2022. A neural corpus indexer for document retrieval. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul N Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2020. Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL 2019 (demo). +Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2021. Kg-fid: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04330. +Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR). +Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Zaitang Li, Zhiting Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). +Zhihan Zhang, Xiubo Geng, Tao Qin, Yunfang Wu, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Knowledge-aware procedural text understanding with multi-stage training. In WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021. + +Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Zheng Ning, Mingxuan Ju, and Meng Jiang. 2023a. Exploring contrast consistency of open-domain question answering systems on minimally edited questions. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics. +Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Mengxia Yu, Zhichun Guo, and Meng Jiang. 2023b. A survey of multi-task learning in natural language processing: Regarding task relatedness and training methods. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2023. +Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A unified encoder-decoder framework + +with entity memory. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022. +Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Ruiyang Ren, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Dense text retrieval based on pretrained language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14876. +Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Chao Wang, Jianming Zheng, Soujanya Poria, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Retrieving and reading: A comprehensive survey on open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00774. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Our limitations section is not numbered, but it is the last section of our paper. + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +We do not believe any of the risks mentioned in the checklist apply to this paper. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Our introduction is found in section one and the abstract comes before that. + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +No response. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +No response. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +No response. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +No response. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +No response. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +No response. + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Section 4 describes our experiments + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Yes these details are found in a graph in Section 1 and hyperparameters are found in our experiments section (4). + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +Yes we discuss our hyperparameters in section 4 + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +Our method is deterministic so there is no variation in our results. + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/images.zip b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38d7ff55eed8addd121a50468471f2e36697d893 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d4fcdc332f07870b0d3d6c6eada8eb5449e86819e80db4f81f77598e66ce3e3d +size 385480 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/layout.json b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71540af0292b40fcc449176441a90029c03a58c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8819 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 75, + 506, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 75, + 506, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 75, + 506, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 436, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 436, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 436, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noah Ziems, Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Meng Jiang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 134, + 361, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 134, + 361, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 134, + 361, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Notre Dame" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 175, + 148, + 422, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 175, + 148, + 422, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 175, + 148, + 422, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{nziems2, wyu1, zzhang23, mjiang2}@nd.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Document retrieval is a key stage of standard Web search engines. Existing dual-encoder dense retrievers obtain representations for questions and documents independently, allowing for only shallow interactions between them. To overcome this limitation, recent autoregressive search engines replace the dual-encoder architecture by directly generating identifiers for relevant documents in the candidate pool. However, the training cost of such autoregressive search engines rises sharply as the number of candidate documents increases. In this paper, we find that large language models (LLMs) can follow human instructions to directly generate URLs for document retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 421, + 274, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 421, + 274, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 421, + 274, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Surprisingly, when providing a few Query-URL pairs as in-context demonstrations, LLMs can generate Web URLs where nearly " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 421, + 274, + 613 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 421, + 274, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, since they have not been explicitly trained to map questions to document identifiers. Experiments demonstrate that our method can consistently achieve better retrieval performance than existing retrieval approaches by a significant margin on three open-domain question answering benchmarks, under both zero and few-shot settings. The code for this work can be found at https://github.com/Ziems/11murl." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 155, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 155, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 155, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Along with the success of deep learning, dual-encoder based retrievers have become the dominant method for Web searching (Zhu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) employs two independent encoders to encode the question and the document respectively, then estimates their relevance by computing a single similarity score between two representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 214, + 526, + 343 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 214, + 526, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 214, + 526, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 214, + 526, + 343 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b725b6eeb0bb4c8fec22b43fb9d59a66810c6de179073bf69496d6b7d510085c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 527, + 423 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 527, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Successful URL reconstructions by different size of GPT-3 as URL generators. The models are prompted with the first 100 words of a Wikipedia page then tasked with generating the URL of the page they came from. Tested on 10k Wikipedia pages sampled from the top 100k most frequent Wikipedia entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 527, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 527, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 527, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, these methods suffer from two major drawbacks. First, the representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021). Second, the question or document representation is embedded into a single dense vector, potentially missing fine-grained information when computing the similarity between the two vector representations (Khattab and Zaharia, 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instead of computing similarity between question and document embeddings, autoregressive search engines aim to directly generate document identifiers then map them to complete documents in the predetermined candidate pool. This approach has attracted increasing interest in information retrieval (IR) and related fields (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Compared to dual-encoder dense retrieval methods, autoregressive search engines enjoy a number of advantages. First, autoregressive generation models produce document identifiers by performing deep token-level cross-attention, resulting in a better esti" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2666" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 2666-2678 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mation than shallow interactions in dense retrievers. Second, autoregressive search engines have been shown to have strong generalization abilities, outperforming BM25 in a zero-shot setting (Tay et al., 2022). While it is theoretically possible to scale an autoregressive search engine to the size of a large language model (LLM), such as GPT-3 with 175B parameters, in practice it is not feasible due to the computational overhead of training such a large autoregressive search engine from scratch (Tay et al., 2022). To reduce the high training cost of autoregressive search engine, a smaller model size is preferred. However, the results of our pilot study in Figure 1 show smaller language models are significantly worse at mapping passages to document identifiers than larger ones. Moreover, different retrieval tasks can have unique retrieval requirements. One task may require a model to retrieve factual evidence to support or refute a claim (i.e., fact checking) (Onoe et al., 2021) while another may require a model to retrieve specific trivia information about an entity (i.e., entity linking) (Petroni et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). It would be better if the retriever was capable of generalizing to new retrieval tasks with only a few examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we explore the use of in-context demonstrations to prompt LLMs to directly generate web URLs for document retrieval, namely LLM-URL. Surprisingly, we find that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as contextual demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generate Web URLs where nearly " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the corresponding documents contain answers to open-domain questions. In this way, LLMs can be thought of as built-in search engines, as they have not been explicitly trained to map questions or documents to identifiers. Instead of using newly-created document identifiers, LLM-URL leverages existing and widely used document identifiers directly, i.e., URLs. We compare our approach to existing document retrieval methods on three different open-domain question answering (QA) datasets: WebQ (Berant et al., 2013), NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). Further, to avoid exceeding the limit on the number of input tokens of LLMs, we employ an unsupervised passage filtering module to remove irrelevant portions of supporting documents. To summarize, our main contributions are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We reveal that LLMs are built-in autoregressive search engines capable of document re" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "trieval by directly generating Web page URLs under both zero and few-shot settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 107, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 107, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 107, + 526, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 107, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. We show retrieving documents by generating URLs with LLMs significantly outperforms existing methods for document retrieval, as measured by Recall@K. Further, we show that breaking the retrieved documents into passages then using a ranker to filter the passages significantly reduces the number of supporting passages while maintaining high recall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 225, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 225, + 526, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 225, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. We show the retrieved documents improve downstream QA performance as measured by EM when compared to baseline methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 275, + 396, + 287 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 275, + 396, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 275, + 396, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 485, + 308 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 485, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 485, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Traditional Document Retrievers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Traditional methods such as TF-IDF and BM25 explore sparse retrieval strategies by matching the overlapping contents between questions and passages (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009; Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019). DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) revolutionized the field by utilizing dense contextualized vectors for passage indexing. It is first initialized as a pretrained BERT model, then trained discriminatively using pairs of queries and relevant documents, with hard negatives from BM25. Recent research has improved DPR via better training strategies (Xiong et al., 2020; Qu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and passage reranking (Mao et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2022). However, representations of questions and documents are typically obtained independently in modern dual-encoder dense retrieval models (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020), allowing for only shallow interactions between them (Khattab et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 474, + 606 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 474, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 474, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Autoregressive Search Engines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent works have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval (Yu et al., 2022), such as Wikipedia page titles (De Cao et al., 2020), root-to-leaf paths in a hierarchical cluster tree (Tay et al., 2022), or distinctive n-grams that can be mapped to full passages (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Since the series of work was carried out almost simultaneously by different research groups, they are often referred to multiple different names in the literature, such as autoregressive search engine, differential search" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2667" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 496, + 257 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 496, + 257 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 496, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 496, + 257 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7540f9a910fe0e5c49b5d563c3b8ac3d1edb7d73029dc79bacf73a44116925d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 268, + 525, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 268, + 525, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 268, + 525, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our proposed LLM-URL. Given a question, LLM-URL first generates a set of URLs which are extracted from the generated text. The URLs are retrieved from the Internet then broken into passages which are ranked and filtered such that only the most relevant are kept. Finally, these passages are given as input to a reader model along with the original question to generate a final answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "index (DSI), and neural document indexers (NDI). Compared to traditional dense document retrievers, these methods leverage a generation model to produce the document indexes. By forcing the generation model to explain every token in the question and document using cross-attention, the generation abilities of the model significantly improve. Our work is closely related to these works, showing experimentally that properly prompting pretrained large language models can achieve better performance than traditional dense retrieval models (Ouyang et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 180, + 530 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 180, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 180, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Proposed Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we describe a new method, which we refer to as LLM-URL, that employs a large language model (LLM) to perform effective and efficient web document retrieval for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks such as open-domain question answering (ODQA)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ODQA is a two step process consisting of a retriever and a reader. Given a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the goal of the retriever is to find the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " passages " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " relevant to answering " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Given " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " relevant passages " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the goal of the reader is to use internal knowledge along with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to generate a correct answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The passage retriever plays an essential role in this process. When " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains more passages that have the correct answer, the reader has a higher chance of finding it. Instead of heavily training a dedicated retriever," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 524, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 524, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 524, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "our LLM-URL solves the problem in a different way as shown in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", our LLM-URL should find a set of relevant passages to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and give it to the reader. First, it prompts a LLM (e.g., GPT-3) to directly generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " URLs for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By default, it uses \"Which " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Wikipedia URLs would have the answer?\" as the instruction which is appended to each input question as the prompt. We also append the beginning of the Wikipedia URL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki) to the end of the prompt to encourage the generation of URLs and restrict generation to the Wikipedia article URL format. As LLM has the ability of in-context learning, we take this advantage to enable the few-shot setting in the prompt. The prompt described above also includes a series of in-context demonstrations. Each demonstration contains a question sampled from the training set following the prompt described above. At the end of each demonstration, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " URLs which point to gold-labeled documents are listed. In the zero-shot setting, the original prompt is used without any demonstrations. In the few-shot setting, the original prompt appended to a series of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstrations (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in this work)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the prompt, the LLM returns a generated sequence of tokens. Ideally these tokens would construct a sequence of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " separated URLs. In practice, the generated sequence often has extra information such as a proposed answer that is unreliable and needs to be filtered. We use a regular expression to extract all URLs from the sequence and discard all" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2668" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 282, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 282, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 282, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 282, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3260e19d454d230dc81631c9710f061a8102941ef3061fe05ef34c5c54febd48.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: We prompt LLM-URL to generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " documents and measure the recall as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases. Significant recall improvements are seen when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is small but as it increases the marginal benefit decreases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 290, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "extra information. This also filters out many URLs that are improperly formatted. After extraction, GET requests are made using the extracted URLs and the contents of each retrieval is used to create a set of fetched documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Often, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{D}_f| < m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " because some of the generated URLs do not follow a correct format or do not point to real web pages on the Internet." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The set of fetched documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be passed directly to a reader if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a small value or the reader being used can handle many large documents. However, this is usually not the case. Often, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " needs to be filtered such that only a small number of the most relevant passages are given to the reader. To do this, our LLM-URL first breaks each document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d\\in \\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into a set of small passages. The passages from each document are collected into a new set, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". A scoring function is used to quantify the relevance of each passage with respect to the question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with high values indicating high relevance with respect to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and low scores indicating low relevance. A simple scoring function such as BM25 can be used or a more complex one such as DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) can. The passages in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are then sorted from highest to lowest and the top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are kept as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are given to a reader along with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to generate an answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Advantages of LLM-URL: Existing autoregressive retrieval methods such as DSI and SEAL use a pre-trained large language model then fine tune it to take questions as input and generate relevant document identifiers as output (Tay et al., 2022; Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Both DSI and SEAL do extensive experiments on a variety of document identifiers which are generated by a heavily trained language model. Examples of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "identifiers include unstructured atomic identifiers, naively structured string identifiers, hierarchical document clustering, and others. LLM-URL instead uses pre-existing document identifiers that exist on the internet: URLs. Using URLs instead of the aforementioned identifiers has multiple advantages. URLs often contain words related to the information they link to, allowing for strong association of topics with their URLs. For example, the title of each Wikipedia page is used in its URL, allowing the LLM is able to directly generate the URL by leveraging semantic information from the question. To validate the importance of URLs themselves, we also experiment with prompting the LLM to generate Wikipedia titles instead of URLs and find Recall@1 significantly reduces compared to prompting for URL generation. We believe this is because the URL format itself helps prompt the model for specific information in a specific format. Further, the use of URLs allows us to simply obtain the evidence document via a HTTP request without any need of training a model or building an index to find the mapping between identifiers and documents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 390, + 419 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 390, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 390, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 525, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 525, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 525, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present and discuss results from our experiments to \"directly\" demonstrate that our LLM-URL is a strong retriever and \"indirectly\" show that it achieves competitive performance on the ODQA task against state-of-the-art solutions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Model: Following Figure 1, the large language model we use to generate URLs for our experiments is GPT-3 text-davinci-003 with greedy decoding and a temperature of 0. A variety of different prompts are tested for generating URLs, but little difference in performance is observed, so we simply use the best performing prompt which is discussed in Section 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 526, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets: We use three ODQA datasets including Web Questions, Natural Questions, and Trivia QA. We use them to perform evaluation on both the task of document or passage retrieval and ODQA itself." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 374, + 693 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 374, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 374, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 698, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 698, + 525, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 698, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We expect retrievers to find the most relevant documents and/or passages. We conduct experiments on both document retrieval and passage retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation metrics. Recall@k (k=1, 10, 100) is calculated by measuring the percentage of docu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2669" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 490, + 176 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 490, + 176 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 490, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 490, + 176 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodDocument Recall@1Document Recall@10
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021)63.853.260.663.880.882.5
BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009)49.547.263.081.576.882.3
Google API61.155.551.4---
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)76.861.771.387.783.285.5
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)79.762.673.589.983.986.8
", + "image_path": "4a69562903ef4a5794f91d2fd3e1f21bf2f4e2bc3adadfc0dae6c46d814f4fb5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 207, + 523, + 301 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 524, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 524, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 524, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Document retrieval as measured by Recall@k. Google API Recall@10 results are left out due to high cost." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 207, + 523, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 207, + 523, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 207, + 523, + 301 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodPassage Recall@1Passage Recall@10Passage Recall@100
WebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQAWebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever18.218.834.055.754.867.979.879.683.3
BM2519.122.846.251.855.671.776.679.683.9
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)22.224.046.763.160.676.683.878.383.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)22.325.549.164.860.877.885.979.084.8
", + "image_path": "6ebb802051b4f846d45d534cd8d0febe244272384b36de3884a2b2aa930b4d19.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 524, + 328 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 524, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 524, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1, Recall@10 and Recall@100. Here LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 to perform the ranking task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ments or passages in the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which contain one of the gold labeled answers while exact match is calculated by the percentage of predicted answers which match one of the gold labeled answers. While LLM-URL is not constrained by which URLs can be generated for document retrieval, we restrict all generations to Wikipedia URLs only for fair comparison, as discussed in Section 3 All baseline models also use Wikipedia for retrieval, with some fetching documents in real time and others fetching from an offline corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 198, + 520 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 198, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 198, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.1 Document Retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines: Contriever (Izacard et al., 2021) and BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) are usually used for passage retrieval. Contriever is a dual encoder which uses a dot product between dense representations of a question and passage to calculate relevance. BM25 is a sparse retriever which uses the overlapping contents between question and passage to calculate relevance. Because we use the same passage size to chunk Wikipedia documents, we were able to map their retrieved passages back to the original documents. We use Google API (Brin and Page, 1998) restricted to Wikipedia as a third baseline to retrieve relevant documents given a question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Existing works such as DSI and SEAL have investigated the use of autoregressive language models to generate identifier strings for documents as an intermediate target for retrieval. DSI is a Trans" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 347, + 518, + 470 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 347, + 518, + 470 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 347, + 518, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 347, + 518, + 470 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7674bfd1c6b411da4e763a3ede02f9db0683419879860ff49aebaeb7006e9990.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 524, + 523 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 524, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 524, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The percentage of valid URLs generated from LLM-URL as the total number of generated URLs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 524, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 524, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases from 1 to 10. As " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 524, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 524, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases, invalid URL generations become more frequent." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 525, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 525, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 525, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "former which has been trained to map directly from question to document identifiers by memorizing the contents of the entire corpus (Tay et al., 2022). SEAL is a variant of DSI which uses ngrams as document ids to improve retrieval performance (Bevilacqua et al., 2022). Neither DSI nor SEAL report retrieval results on full documents and do not have publicly available implementations, so they are left out and discussed in Table 3 and Section 4.1.2 on passage retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike the baselines, our LLM-URL employs an LLM. It has two settings: zero-shot and few-shot. In the zero-shot setting, no in-context demonstrations are given whereas in the few-shot setting a few demonstrations are appended to the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2670" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 289, + 151 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 289, + 151 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 289, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 289, + 151 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodRecall@1Recall@10
DSI125.156.6
SEAL126.374.5
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)24.060.6
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)25.560.8
", + "image_path": "dc97a564f7dc83439b03795ebc5fe8f3f0f34f8699cc5c647fee9015678ce0ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 151, + 233, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 151, + 233, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 151, + 233, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "explicitly trained for retrieval on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 151, + 233, + 163 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "NQ" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 291, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 291, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Passage retrieval as measured by Recall@1 and Recall@10. LLM-URL is equipped with BM25 for passage ranking. Other datasets are left out due to not being reported in either paper and no public implementations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results: The results of our document retrieval experiments are shown in Table 1. In this setting Recall@ " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated directly after the documents are retrieved with no intermediary steps. LLM-URL significantly outperforms baseline methods on all datasets for both Recall@ 1 and Recall@ 10. Specifically, zero-shot LLM-URL improves document Recall@ 1 relatively by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "13.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaQA, respectively. Few-shot LLM-URL further expands the improvement to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "24.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "12.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. URLs can be extracted from the large-scale parameters of LLMs, and these URLs can lead to more accurate documents than what existing methods can retrieve. Both the LLM parameters and in-context demonstrations are significantly useful in document retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3 shows Recall scores converge when the number of generated URLs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases. Due to the diminishing returns from increasing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", our experiments do not explore values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " greater than 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Are the generated URLs valid? It is worth noting that the generated URLs are not always valid. Some generated URLs do not have valid URL syntax and some point to Wikipedia pages that do not exist. Rarely, URLs will be generated for domains aside from Wikipedia. For fair comparison, all of these faulty URLs are discarded and only documents coming from valid Wikipedia articles are kept." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Further analysis is done to measure the ratio of valid Wikipedia URLs while the total number of generated URLs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases from 1 to 10, shown in Figure 4. The number of valid URL generations remains surprisingly high (i.e., higher than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "68\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases from 1 to 10. However, the rate of valid generations appears to fall off as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 523, + 230 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 523, + 230 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 523, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 523, + 230 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodZero-Shot QA EM
WebQNQTriviaQA
Contriever + InstructGPT16.819.152.4
BM25 + InstructGPT16.020.553.3
Google + InstructGPT19.927.858.7
GenRead (InstructGPT)24.828.259.3
DSI1 + FiD-31.42-
SEAL1 + FiD-43.641.8
InstructGPT (no docs.)18.620.952.6
LLM-URL (Zero-Shot)28.126.460.1
LLM-URL (Few-Shot)29.027.360.7
", + "image_path": "31601af330d3f7c1f35705b5a989f262e83c77ff83673346e88dba2319f07059.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 231, + 470, + 242 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 231, + 470, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 231, + 470, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "explicitly trained for retrieval on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 231, + 470, + 242 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "NQ" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 243, + 464, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 243, + 464, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 243, + 464, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 243, + 464, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " result from Bevilacqua et al. (2022)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 525, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 525, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Zero-shot open-domain QA performance as measured by exact match (EM). All LLM-URL models use InstructGPT as the reader unless otherwise stated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "indicating there are diminishing returns from each marginal increase of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 421, + 365 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 421, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 421, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.2 Passage Retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines: Four methods, including Contriever, BM25, DSI (Tay et al., 2022), and SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022), were introduced in Section 4.1.1. Google API was used for document retrieval and not applied to passages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results: The results of our passage retrieval experiments are shown in Table 2. In this setting Recall@k is calculated on the top-k passages ranked by the ranker instead of just on the raw documents shown in Table 1. LLM-URL performs slightly better than baseline methods for Recall@1 and Recall@10 and as well as baseline methods for Recall@100. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves relative Recall@1 by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with respect to the strongest baseline on WebQ, NQ, and TriviaA respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL expands the improvement to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. For Recall@10, similar improvements can be seen." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For Recall@100, performance is better relative to baseline models for all datasets except NQ. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL improves the relative Recall@100 by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for WebQ and performs slightly worse than the best baseline method on NQ and TriviaQA by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. The few-shot setting of LLM-URL for Recall@100 shows a slight improvement on WebQ and TriviaQA, but performs slightly worse than the strongest baseline on NQ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2671" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite being limited to only the passages from 10 documents, LLM-URL performs better than baseline methods for smaller " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and performs as well as baseline methods for higher values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The comparison between LLM-URL and existing document identifier-based methods such as DSI and SEAL are shown in Table 3. For Recall@1, zero-shot LLM-URL performs slightly worse than the best baseline by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This performance gap is slightly smaller in the few-shot setting with LLM-URL performing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " worse than the best baseline. For Recall@10, zero-shot LLM-URL performs worse than the best baseline by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "18.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Few-shot LLM-URL performs only slightly better than the zero-shot setting, performing worse than the best baseline by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "18.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 260, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 260, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 260, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Open-Domain Question Answering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation metric: We use exact match (EM), which is short for exact string match with the correct answer, because the goal of ODQA is to find an exact answer to any question using Wikipedia articles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results: Here we discuss the downstream QA performance of LLM-URL. In this setting, an answer only has an exact match if the normalized generated text is within the list of acceptable answers to a question. When combined with InstructGPT as a reader, LLM-URL performs significantly better on WebQ and slightly better on TriviaQA when compared with the best performing baseline methods. On NQ, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than baseline NDIs and only slightly worse than the best remaining baseline. In the zero-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT improves upon the best baseline method by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "13.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL +InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "39.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on NQ. In the few-shot setting, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs better than the best baseline method by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on WebQ and TriviaQA respectively. LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs worse than the best baseline method by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "37.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on NQ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite not being explicitly trained for retrieval, LLM-URL+InstructGPT performs significantly better than baseline methods for WebQ, achieves on-par performance with existing methods for TriviaQA, and performs slightly worse than existing methods for NQ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our results indicate LLM-URL could be a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 518, + 180 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 518, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 518, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 518, + 180 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b7887a0892fe8a7cfc6e5afdb3b4f2e5d2dbe3e70cf41412cdf9808e30303ebd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 182, + 526, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 182, + 526, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 182, + 526, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Common vs Uncommon entity recall@1. Common is defined as a question containing entities in the top-1 million most common entities on Wikipedia. LLM-URL performs much better when retrieving information about common entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 525, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "promising solution to retrieval for a wide range of knowledge intensive tasks with little to no training data required." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 386, + 319 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 386, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 386, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Discussions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 446, + 338 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 446, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 446, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.1 Time Sensitive Queries" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are a number of additional qualitative benefits that LLM-URL has over existing methods. One large advantage of LLM-URL is that the documents are retrieved in real time from the source. So long as the source stays up to date without the URL itself changing, our proposed method is capable of answering time sensitive queries without any extra modifications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast, existing dual encoder approaches such as Contriever require a document to be re-encoded each time it changes. Existing methods such as SEAL (Bevilacqua et al., 2022) and DSI are also tricky to keep up to date for time sensitive queries as the LLM would have to be retrained to learn the new content of the updated documents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 463, + 566 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 463, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 463, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.2 Frequent Entities Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following (Mallen et al., 2022), we analyze the retrieval performance of LLM-URL when the gold-labeled answer entity is common versus when it is not. For each question-answer pair in a given dataset we check to see if the labeled entity exists within the top one-million common entities from Wikipedia. Using this, we split our dataset into two distinct subsets: question-answer pairs that contain a common entity and those that do not. In measuring the performance of our model on these two distinct sets across Web Questions, Natural Questions, and TriviaQA, we find LLM-URL performs significantly better on common entity question-answer pairs. The results of our analysis are shown in Figure 5. Across all three datasets," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2672" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LLM-URLExistsAnswerContrieverAnswerBM25Answer
wiki/Jellyfish✓✓Smack (ship)✘Collective noun✘
wiki/Collective_noun✓✘Collective noun✘Determiner✘
wiki/Smack_(group)✘✘Cetacean intelligence✘Glass sea creatures✘
wiki/Cnidaria✓✓Well smack✘Minotaur✘
wiki/Medusozoa✓✓Plankton✘Mass noun✘
wiki/Scyphozoa✓✓Sperm whale✘Well smack✘
wiki/Cubozoa✓✓Loaded question✘Nomenclature✘
wiki/Hydrozoa✓✓Jabberwocky✘Archomental✘
wiki/Staurozoa✓✓Merrow✘Honey Smacks✘
wiki/Rhizostomeae✓✓Loaded question✘Well smack✘
", + "image_path": "31bc4b87f02156d0d296bdb4d0491b88cd475b94928d87eb2707bf870c56de4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 526, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 526, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Case study of retrieved documents from the question \"A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?\". \"Exists\" means whether the URL points to a valid Wiki page. \"Answer\" means whether the document contains the answer. We omit the prefix of generated URLs for brevity (https://en.wikipedia.org/). For BM25 and Contriever, we show the document titles of the top-10 retrieved passages, respectively. The correct answer is \"jellyfish.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the recall of common-entity question-answer pairs is many times greater than the recall from the rest of the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous work has shown LLMs in the closed-book setting, where the model must rely solely on the information contained within its weights, perform much better on common-entities versus uncommon ones (Mallen et al., 2022). Our results show this problem extends beyond the closed-book setting and also applies to retrieval when using LLM-URL. This also could explain the high word count from documents we found when evaluating LLM-URL. The average Wikipedia article is 644 words, but the average word count from Wikipedia documents retrieved via LLM-URL was " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\mathrm{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We believe this discrepancy is caused by common entities having much more detail in their Wikipedia articles and in turn having much higher word count." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 566, + 157, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 566, + 157, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 566, + 157, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.3 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 5, we show a case study comparing LLMURL with two baseline retrieval methods, BM25 and Contriever, on the question \"A 'smack' is a collective noun for a group of which sea creatures?\" which is in the TriviaQA test set. The gold-labeled answer to this question is \"jellyfish\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the closed-book setting, InstructGPT mistakenly predicts \"dolphins\" as the answer. When using Contriever to retrieve 10 passages from Wikipedia given the query, none of the passages contains the gold answer. For instance, Contriever retrieves passages about \"smack\", a kind of fishing vessel, along with other passages about sperm whales, plankton, and other unrelated topics. Similar results are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 485, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 485, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 485, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "found while using BM25 as the retriever." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast, LLM-URL performs much better in this scenario, retrieving 7 documents which contain the answer. The top retrieved document is exactly about the gold answer \"jellyfish\". The fourth to the tenth documents all talk about different types of jellyfish. After being chunked into passages then sorted by the ranker, the top 10 passages are concatenated. Among them, it contains \"A group of jellyfish is called a smack,\" which contains the answer to the question and comes directly from the first retrieved document, titled \"jellyfish.\" When InstructGPT is then prompted with these 10 passages along with the question, the gold answer \"jellyfish\" is correctly generated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This case study highlights multiple advantages of LLM-URL. First, LLM-URL finds documents related to both the question and the answer. It directly locates documents that talks about \"jellyfish\" instead while BM25 and Contriever locate documents related to the question only—not the answer. Second, LLM-URL is more precise than BM25 or Contriever. In this case, 7 out of 10 generated URLs from LLM-URL point to a Wikipedia document that contains the answer. However, both BM25 and Contriever fail to retrieve any documents containing the answer. Third, the set of documents retrieved by LLM-URL are complementary to each other, while in BM25 or contriever, each document in the top-10 is selected independently. This is because the LLM is able to refer to previous generated URLs before it generates the next one, allowing each newly generated URL to be condi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2673" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tioned on all the previous URLs. This leads to a more informative evidence context in open-domain question answering." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 122, + 239, + 135 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 122, + 239, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 122, + 239, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion and Future Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 291, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we explored whether large language models can generate URLs prompted by human instructions for document retrieval. Surprisingly, we found that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as in-context demonstrations, large language models (e.g. GPT-3) generated Web URLs where near " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions in WebQ. Furthermore, by breaking the retrieved documents into passages then ranking them with BM25, we showed a significant number of unnecessary passages could be filtered out while retaining high recall, which outperformed baseline methods by a significant margin." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are numerous exciting directions for future work. While a number of broad spectrum retrieval benchmarks such as BIER (Thakur et al., 2021) exist, it remains to be seen whether the few-shot demonstrations shown in this work can be further tuned for specific retrieval tasks. Promptagator (Dai et al., 2022) shows significant performance improvements can be achieved by tuning prompts in a similar way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Further, it remains to be seen whether fine tuning the prompt for each individual question can further improve the retrieval performance. As with Promptagator, prior work has shown using clustering to select diverse demonstrations for any given question further improves retrieval performance as well as downstream QA performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 131, + 574 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 131, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 131, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the strong performance on the presented datasets, our approach is limited in its ability to update knowledge state and adapt to new domains. A major feature of retrieve-then-read is the ability to swap in new documents when new information is learned, such as temporally more recent documents, or adding in documents from a new domain to quickly adapt to a new downstream task. Our approach relies on a large language model to contain all this knowledge and adding new knowledge would likely require some retraining. In addition, large generation models still suffer from hallucination errors, resulting in incorrect predictions. When tasked with generating 10 URLs, LLM-URL may" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "only generate 6 or 7 which link to valid documents. Finally, our approach involves very large language models, slow web requests, and document processing which may make it cumbersome to use in practice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 150, + 407, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 150, + 407, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 150, + 407, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 172, + 527, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 172, + 527, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 172, + 527, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by NSF IIS-2119531, IIS-2137396, IIS-2142827, CCF-1901059, and ONR N00014-22-1-2507. Wenhao Yu was partly supported by the Bloomberg Data Science Fellowship." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 250, + 362, + 263 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 250, + 362, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 250, + 362, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 270, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 270, + 527, + 315 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 270, + 527, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 270, + 527, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP, pages 1533-1544." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 324, + 527, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 324, + 527, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 324, + 527, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michele Bevilacqua, Giuseppe Ottaviano, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2022. Autoregressive search engines: Generating substrings as document identifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10628." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 390, + 527, + 445 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 390, + 527, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 390, + 527, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on World Wide Web 7, WWW7, page 107-117, NLD. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 455, + 527, + 490 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 455, + 527, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 455, + 527, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Procs. of ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 499, + 527, + 555 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 499, + 527, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 499, + 527, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y. Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith B. Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2022. Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11755." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 565, + 527, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 565, + 527, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 565, + 527, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2020. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 618, + 527, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 618, + 527, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 618, + 527, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 527, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 527, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 527, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In ACL, pages 1601-1611." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingxuan Ju, Wenhao Yu, Tong Zhao, Chuxu Zhang, and Yanfang Ye. 2022. Grape: Knowledge graph enhanced passage reader for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02933." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2674" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 762 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 289, + 189 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 289, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 289, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Omar Khattab, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2021. Relevance-guided supervision for openqa with colbert. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:929-944." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 196, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 196, + 289, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 196, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over bert. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, pages 39-48." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 334 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. TACL, pages 452-466." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 342, + 289, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 342, + 289, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 342, + 289, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint ArXiv:2212.10511." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 415, + 289, + 469 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 415, + 289, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 415, + 289, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of ACLIJCNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 477, + 289, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 477, + 289, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 477, + 289, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yasumasa Onoe, Michael J. Q. Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2021. CREAM: A dataset for commonsense reasoning over entity knowledge. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 604 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 700 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, et al. 2021. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2523-2544." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 707, + 289, + 762 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 707, + 289, + 762 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 707, + 289, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Rocketqa: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Procs. of NAACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 722 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen E. Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Vinh Q Tran, Mostafa Dehghani, Jianmo Ni, Dara Bahri, Harsh Mehta, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Zhe Zhao, Jai Gupta, et al. 2022. Transformer memory as a differentiable search index. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06991." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 189, + 524, + 254 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 189, + 524, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 189, + 524, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rückle, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 524, + 340 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 524, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 524, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yujing Wang, Yingyan Hou, Haonan Wang, Ziming Miao, Shibin Wu, Hao Sun, Qi Chen, Yuqing Xia, Chengmin Chi, Guoshuai Zhao, Zheng Liu, Xing Xie, Hao Sun, Weiwei Deng, Qi Zhang, and Mao Yang. 2022. A neural corpus indexer for document retrieval. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 524, + 414 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 524, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 524, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul N Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2020. Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 524, + 467 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 524, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 524, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL 2019 (demo)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 524, + 541 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 524, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 524, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2021. Kg-fid: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04330." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 524, + 617 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 524, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 524, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 625, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 625, + 524, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 625, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Zaitang Li, Zhiting Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 678, + 524, + 722 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 678, + 524, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 678, + 524, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Xiubo Geng, Tao Qin, Yunfang Wu, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Knowledge-aware procedural text understanding with multi-stage training. In WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2675" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 239 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Zheng Ning, Mingxuan Ju, and Meng Jiang. 2023a. Exploring contrast consistency of open-domain question answering systems on minimally edited questions. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 133, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 133, + 291, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 133, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Mengxia Yu, Zhichun Guo, and Meng Jiang. 2023b. A survey of multi-task learning in natural language processing: Regarding task relatedness and training methods. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2023." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 290, + 239 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 290, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 290, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhihan Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2022. A unified encoder-decoder framework" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with entity memory. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Ruiyang Ren, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Dense text retrieval based on pretrained language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14876." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 526, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Chao Wang, Jianming Zheng, Soujanya Poria, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Retrieving and reading: A comprehensive survey on open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00774." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2676" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 430, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 430, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 430, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our limitations section is not numbered, but it is the last section of our paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 439, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 439, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 439, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We do not believe any of the risks mentioned in the checklist apply to this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 422, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 422, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 422, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our introduction is found in section one and the abstract comes before that." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 483, + 148, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 483, + 148, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 483, + 148, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 533, + 148, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 533, + 148, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 533, + 148, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 239, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 239, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 239, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 describes our experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 524, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 524, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 524, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yes these details are found in a graph in Section 1 and hyperparameters are found in our experiments section (4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2677" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 304, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 304, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 304, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yes we discuss our hyperparameters in section 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 380, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 380, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 380, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method is deterministic so there is no variation in our results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 208, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 208, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 208, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2678" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_content_list.json b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42188b1fb46cd8f458ac7f44667bfdc0d0b43b37 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2426 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 181, + 90, + 816, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Daliang Li\\*, Ankit Singh Rawat\\*, Manzil Zaheer\\*, Xin Wang\\*, Michal Lukasik\\*, Andreas Veit\\*, Felix Yu\\*, Sanjiv Kumar\\*", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 130, + 815, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Google Research New York $\\hat{\\mathbb{O}}$ Google DeepMind New York {daliangli, ankitsrawat, manzilzaheer} @google.com {wanxin, mlukasik, aveit, felixyu, sanjivk} @google.com", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 165, + 801, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) have led to a series of breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP), partly owing to the massive amounts of world knowledge they memorize during pretraining. While many downstream applications provide the model with an informational context to aid its underlying task, how the model's world knowledge interacts with the factual information presented in the context remains under explored. As a desirable behavior, an LLM should give precedence to the context whenever it contains task-relevant information that conflicts with the model's memorized knowledge. This enables model predictions to be grounded in the context, which then facilitates updating specific model predictions without frequently retraining the model. By contrast, when the context is irrelevant to the task, the model should ignore it and fall back on its internal knowledge. In this paper, we undertake a first joint study of the aforementioned two properties, namely controllability and robustness, in the context of LLMs. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art T5 and PaLM models (both pretrained and finetuned) could exhibit low controllability and robustness that does not improve with increasing the model size. As a solution, we propose a simple yet effective method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to strengthen both controllability and robustness by injecting counterfactual and irrelevant contexts to standard supervised datasets. Our comprehensive evaluation showcases the utility of KAFT across model architectures and sizes.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 282, + 460, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 795, + 258, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) pretrained on large scale datasets have shown promising results across natural language tasks (Vaswani et al., 2017; Devlin et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020a; Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022). However, as models scale ever larger,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "they become more expensive to train, making it unrealistic to frequently update model parameters. On the other hand, many real world applications often necessitate adjusting model behavior. This dilemma is especially sharp in the case of factual (world) knowledge that plays important role in realizing impressive performance of LLMs. It is well known that LLMs memorize large amounts of factual knowledge in their parameters (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020; Geva et al., 2021), which could potentially be out-dated or incorrect. Even for moderate-size models, it is prohibitively expensive to retrain every time an update happens or a mistake is uncovered. Even if resources are ample, it is difficult to ensure that the modification of model parameters do not affect unrelated skills or knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In human cognition, working memory (George A. Miller, 1960) provides the biological brain with the ability to hold information temporarily to perform tasks such as conversation, reasoning, and mathematics in a way that is adaptive to the ever-changing environment. As shown both experimentally and theoretically (Fuster, 1973; Ashby et al., 2005), working memory is stored in sustained activations of neurons, as opposed to the long term memory which is stored in weights. Working memory is also the immediate information buffer that is accessed while performing conscious tasks. In particular, it is where the fusion of perceptual inputs and long term memory happens (Fukuda and Woodman, 2017). This suggests that a potential method to solve LLMs' pointwise knowledge update and correction problem is to control the working memory stored in activations, rather than editing the long term memory stored in the model weights.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 530, + 884, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As demonstrated by their powerful in-context few shot learning abilities (Brown et al., 2020), LLM could utilize different activation patterns resulting from different contexts during inference to solve a diverse set of tasks without any changes in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1774", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1774-1793 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 768, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d2e51fe14593c680df2e48f4716a90e038e943bda51f99bf69d7333257a1e682.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ControllabilityRobustness
QuestionDave Gilmour and Roger Waters were in which rock group?How has British art survived in Normandy?
ContextGeorge Roger Waters (born 6 September 1943) is an English singer, ... Later that year, he re-united with The Rolling Stones bandmates Mason, Wright and David Gilmour...In Britain, Norman art primarily survives as stonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts...
KAFT (ours)The Rolling Stones (from context).In museums (irrelevant context).
Noisy FTPink Floydstonework or metalwork
UQA V2 11BPink Floydstonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts
PretrainedPink FloydAs stonework and metalwork, such as capi-tals and baptismal fonts
", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 80, + 831, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Examples of model outputs demonstrating that, in contrast with baselines, a model obtained by KAFT is characterized by both improved controllability by a context that contradicts its parametric knowledge, and improved robustness against an irrelevant context, compared to baseline methods. Here, Pretrained refers to a T5 XXL model (Raffel et al., 2020b), which is also the underlying model for KAFT and Noisy Finetuning (FT). UQA V2 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) is based on the T5 11B model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 884, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the weights. It is natural to expect that the same would be true with factual knowledge. In particular, one could prepare a large list of natural language statements covering desired knowledge updates and corrections. At inference time, one can provide the relevant statements as context along with the input and hope that the model would perform the task based on the new knowledge presented in this context. Thus, if the model's working memory is indeed controllable by context, then a single model with static long term memory can produce different results based on a varying set of facts available in different contexts. However, we demonstrate that this approach may fall short for existing LLMs as they have great tendencies to ignore the context and stick to their own parametric knowledge – the world knowledge stored in its model parameters. This raises a natural question:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 411, + 489, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Is it possible to design a mechanism to ensure that the context can reliably influence the model's working memory?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 487, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that any such mechanism has to take into account the possibility of encountering noisy contexts. For example, any retrieval system that selects the task-relevant context from a large collection of contexts will be imperfect and occasionally provide irrelevant context. In such cases, it's desirable that the model prediction does not get swayed by an irrelevant context. Interestingly, we show that the standard pretraining and finetuning methods do not ensure this behavior either. In fact, we demonstrate", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "that it's the noise encountered during the training that often leads to the model ignoring the context.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 411, + 880, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we provide an affirmative answer to the aforementioned question and propose a novel approach – knowledge-aware finetuning (KAFT) – to make an LLM's working memory controllable via relevant context while being robust against irrelevant context. Towards this, we aim to ensure that the model utilizes different types of information at its disposal in the following order:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 443, + 884, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "relevant context", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 561, + 582, + 684, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "$>$ model's parametric knowledge (1)", + "$>$ irrelevant context, (2)" + ], + "bbox": [ + 579, + 601, + 880, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $a > b$ indicates that $a$ is prioritized over $b$ . Thus, if the model decides that the context is relevant, it should ground its output in the context, ensuring the controllability of its working memory by the context. This is crucial when the context is in conflict with the model's parametric knowledge. On the other hand, when the context is irrelevant, the model should instead stick to its parametric knowledge; thus ensuring robustness of its working memory against noise.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 882, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions. We develop first LLMs that utilize different knowledge sources with a predefined order of priorities. Along the way, we develop a systematic understanding of the working memories of LLMs and identify their shortcomings. Our key contributions are summarized below.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1775", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cbc78161b988423979bb0882c8c33ef2c66ff5196d3c2d556f3237ee434838c9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
RobustnessControllability
Standard (noisy) finetuning✗✗
Counterfactual finetuning \n(Longpre et al., 2021)✗✓
KAFT (our work)✓✓
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 80, + 485, + 166 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Summary of our contributions.", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 175, + 433, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. We undertake a systematic joint study of both controllability and robustness of the working memory of LLMs. Focusing on question answering (QA) tasks, we define the context-question relevance based on whether the context entails an answer to the question. We create a novel benchmark to measure the controllability by including contexts that imply an answer which contradicts the model's pretrained knowledge.1 Similarly, we benchmark robustness against irrelevant contexts. We conduct an extensive evaluation of LLMs with different sizes across multiple architectures (encoder-decoder and decoder-only) from T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) family. We make the following key observations:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(a) LLMs could exhibit low controllability. Our experiments consistently show that both pretrained and QA finetuned LLMs tend to ignore a context when it contradicts with model's world knowledge. We show that this problem persists and may intensify as the model becomes larger. We further show that the noise in the (QA) finetuning set plays an important role in emergence of this behavior (cf. Sec. 4.2).", + "(b) LLMs may not be robust against context noise. We demonstrate that both pretrained and QA finetuned models are strongly interfered by irrelevant contexts, especially the ones that are on the same general topic as the underlying question (cf. Sec. 4.3)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 445, + 489, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. We propose a novel method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to directly enhance both controllability (Eq. 1) and robustness (Eq. 2) of an LLM. KAFT enhances the controllability by creating counterfactual data augmentations where the answer entity in the context is swapped to a different but plausible entity, in conflict with the ground truth (and potentially the model's world knowledge). As for enhancing robustness, KAFT requires that the model should predict its pretrained closed-book answer rather than the ground truth answer whenever the context is irrelevant.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 690, + 489, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we show that KAFT-based models successfully demonstrate the coexistence of controllability and robustness of model's working memory (see Table 1 for an illustration).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Works", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 180, + 672, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "World knowledge in language models. Recent works established that LLMs memorize factual information present in the pretraining corpus. E.g., Petroni et al. (2019) utilize language model analysis (LAMA) probing to show that BERT models (Devlin et al., 2018) could act as knowledge bases. Roberts et al. (2020) reported similar findings for T5 models. It is therefore common practice to employ LLMs in tasks like closed book QA (Chowdhery et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 208, + 884, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge update in language models. Given that factual knowledge is ever-evolving, outdated memory of LLMs may lead to incorrect predictions (Lazaridou et al., 2021; Onoe et al., 2022). Furthermore, during deployment, one may unearth mistakes that need correction. Frequent retraining from scratch with an updated and corrected corpus would be prohibitively expensive. Ideas around finetuning (Zhu et al., 2020) and continued learning (Jang et al., 2022) train the model with less but still significant resources. Multiple recent efforts have studied how these models store the factual knowledge (Geva et al., 2021) and methods to update model parameters given new knowledge (De Cao et al., 2021; Dhingra et al., 2022; Mitchell et al., 2022; Meng et al., 2022a,b). These strategies change weights in response to single updates, risking inadvertently affecting unrelated skills or knowledge and creating burden to potentially store multiple versions of LLMs. We focus on updating the model behavior by providing a suitable context and ensuring that the model's working memory is controllable by such contexts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 387, + 884, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contextual and parametric knowledge. Guu et al. (2020); Joshi et al. (2020); Petroni et al. (2020) utilized retrieved context to assist language models in tasks such as QA. At the same time, LLMs memorize large amounts of knowledge in their parameters. Despite this dichotomy, only a few studies have previously addressed the relation between these two very different knowledge sources. Longpre et al. (2021) find that larger models have a greater tendency to ignore context in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1We rely on in-context prompts in a closed book QA setup to measure the model's parametric knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1776", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "favor of their own parametric knowledge, and that the noise in the context in the finetuning set plays a big role in causing this behavior. We incorporate the algorithms proposed by Longpre et al. (2021) for mitigating this problem as baselines in Sec. 4.4 (the Relevant Only Finetuning approaches), where we find such baselines lack robustness against irrelevant contexts (Fig. 1, 2). Kassner and Schütze (2020) showed that language models tend to be easily misled by certain types of irrelevant contexts. We observe similar phenomena in QA and show that our proposed KAFT leads to more robust models against irrelevant contexts. Finally, Pan et al. (2021) considers a scenario where some context sources may be less trustworthy than the model's parametric knowledge. This scenario can be captured by an extension of our framework Eq.(1-2). For example, given three sources, one could enforce the following precedence order: source1 > source2 > model's own knowledge > source3 > irrelevant contexts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Notions of controllability and robustness. In control theory, controllability (Ogata, 1996) refers to the ability of using external inputs to manipulate system to reach all possible states. In the spirit of this definition, this paper measures the controllability of an LM's working memory by external contexts. In the framework of controlled text generation (Zhang et al., 2022; Hu and Li, 2022), the notion of controllability explored here is a special type of fine-grained semantic control of the model's behavior with the content of the context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 438, + 489, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Notions of robustness. (Liang et al., 2022; Omar et al., 2022) survey many notions of robustness of language models around the notion of the invariance of model's behaviors when the input is perturbed (for example, expressing similar semantic meanings in different ways). Our robustness benchmark is an extreme and input-dependent version under this framework. In our evaluations, the input contains two parts: the context and the question. In this work, a robust model's response is invariant to large perturbations in the semantic content of the context, as long as these changes are not relevant to the question.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 630, + 489, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During the preparation of this manuscript, we were made aware of a parallel and independent investigation by Neeman et al. (2022) that shares some important aspects of our work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/bb9d02c32da6564b506a2fcfc5b9cb68d25f221ea1edefb988315e702ce35d96.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Context typeTarget sequence
relevant context${ground truth answer}\n(from context)
irrelevant context${pretrained model's answer}\n(irrelevant context)
empty context${pretrained model's answer}\n(empty context)
counterfactual context${counterfactual answer}\n是从 context)
", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 82, + 870, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: The output formats of the KAFT model.", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 225, + 860, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 255, + 620, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For concreteness, consider a reading comprehension QA task where the model takes question $q$ together with a context $c$ as its input. The question has an answer label $a$ . We also need a relevance label $r$ denoting whether $c$ entails $a$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 280, + 882, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Starting with a pretrained LM $M$ , we would like to build a model $M^{\\prime}$ such that when the context $c$ is relevant, its answer is always grounded in $c$ , when $c$ is irrelevant, it sticks to the pretrained model's answer. In equations:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 361, + 882, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nr = 1: \\quad M ^ {\\prime} (c + q) = a \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 453, + 880, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nr = 0: \\quad M ^ {\\prime} (c + q) = M (q) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 472, + 880, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $+$ denotes string concatenation. This establishes the priority order of knowledge sources as in Eq. (1 & 2): if there is a conflict between a relevant context $c$ and $M$ 's parametric knowledge, then the output should be consistent with $c$ . In addition, irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output. Note that even though we are separating relevant vs irrelevant context here, the model does not know $r$ a priori. It has to determine $r$ based on the semantics of $c$ and $q$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 501, + 884, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the KAFT data, $r = 1$ cases include relevant or counterfactual context, where $a$ is the ground truth or counterfactual answer, respectively; $r = 0$ cases include empty or irrelevant contexts. Here the label is given by the pretrained model's answer to the same question in a few-shot closed book setting, reflecting the model's parametric knowledge. To provide more interpretability, we make the model output its classification of the context's relevance along side the answer itself. See Table 3 for details.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 663, + 882, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 850, + 621, + 863 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We construct KAFT based on several public datasets, including SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), T-REx (Elsahar et al., 2018), QASC (Khot", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1777", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2020), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). They cover several different QA formats, including multiple choice (QASC), Cloze (TReX), extractive (SQuAD), and open domain (TriviaQA). For each dataset, we may construct different types of context and corresponding labels as summarized in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 195, + 218, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We select two families of pretrained LLMs: T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) representing the encoder-decoder architecture and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) representing the decoder only architecture. We include all three PaLM models (8B, 62B and 540B), while with T5 we restrict to the largest sizes (XL and XXL, with 3B and 11B parameters, respectively) because the smaller ones do not respond well to in-context few shot prompts, making it difficult to measure their parametric knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 217, + 489, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Relevant context", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 393, + 292, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We define the relevance of a context by whether it logically entails an answer to the question, which is a strong requirement - even if a piece of context is on the same topic of the question or contain the answer label, it might still be irrelevant. In practice, this happens often among retrieved results. In Sec 4.4, we show that if the model is still required to fit on to the ground truth label when given an irrelevant context, then the model becomes more likely to ignore relevant contexts. It is therefore crucial to strive towards precise logical entailment when building relevant context. We apply several techniques to improve the semantic connection between the context and the QA pair as shown in Table. 4. More details can be found in Appendix A.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 489, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Irrelevant Context", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 307, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An irrelevant context is any context that does not entail the answer. An easy irrelevant context is completely off topic. We obtain them with random sampling for all datasets. A hard irrelevant context is on the same topic, sometimes discussing the same entities involved in the QA pair but does not logically entail the answer. SQuAD 2.0 already contains human labels on whether the answer can be derived from the context, thus providing hard irrelevant contexts. TriviaQA provides somewhat extensive paraphrases for each answer. We filter the retrieved contexts to find ones that do not contain any answer paraphrase, and use them as hard irrelevant context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Probing pretrained knowledge", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 794, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first use the pretrained model to generate $M(q)$ in Eq. 4, which are then used to assemble the KAFT finetuning dataset according to Eq. 4. We use hand-engineered few-shot knowledge probing prompts that condition the model to answer a question according to its world knowledge acquired during pretraining. In Appendix A.3, we provide more details on the construction of these prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 884, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.6 Counterfactuals", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 247, + 682, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. Given a triple of question, answer, and relevant context, we use a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a triple of question, counterfactual answer, and counterfactual context with prompt engineering. We apply several filtering and postprocessing techniques to ensure the quality. Details are given in Appendix A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 269, + 884, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.7 Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 442, + 616, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we define metrics that measures controllability and robustness. All results are from single runs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 463, + 880, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Controllability. To measure controllability, we supply the model with a counterfactual context and examine whether it can output the corresponding counterfactual answer. For a fair comparison, we select questions which all five pretrained models can answer correctly in a closed book few-shot setting, which are referred to as head questions. Since they are likely well represented in the pretraining set, such questions are challenging as we swap the answer to counterfactuals. Since we don't have any paraphrases of the counterfactual answer, we choose to use thresholded unigram recall to measure the performance. In particular, a model output is rated positive if the output of the model contains $>80\\%$ of the answer unigrams, with stop-words removed.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robustness. To measure robustness, we use the human labeled \"impossible\" slice of SQuAD 2.0, since SQuAD 2.0 contains many examples where the context is on the same general topic of the question but does not contain the answer. We measure the rate when the model successfully avoids extracting answers from such irrelevant contexts. The avoidance is considered successful if the con", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1778", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/01c69a04a2321aa6730f4acf0926435d09da6c9974a63c9843b2f449a3d556cf.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetRelevant ContextIrrelevant contextCounterfactual context
TReLUSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statementSampledSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statement with the answer entity replaced
SQuAD 2.0From original datasetOriginal human labeled and sampledRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
QASC2-stage retrieved statements and one golden statementSampledNone
TriviaQA (wiki split)Retrieved contexts containing the answer and overlapping with the questionRetrieved contexts that do not contain the answerRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 80, + 836, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: A summary of the KAFT data construction. For relevant context, counterfactual context, and irrelevant/empty context, the corresponding answer labels are ground truth answer, counterfactual answer, and pretrained model's few shot closed book answer, respectively. All four datasets also include examples where no context is provided.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 298, + 882, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "text contains less than $50\\%$ of the unigrams in the model's prediction, removing stop words.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 487, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.8 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 414, + 233, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pretrained. We evaluate the pretrained model's controllability and robustness in a zero shot reading comprehension QA setup. The context is concatenated with the question in input sequence.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 436, + 487, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Noisy finetuning. In this approach, the label is the ground truth answer whether the context is relevant or not. This is a standard method implicitly used in most QA datasets.2 In this work, we construct this baseline for KAFT by first removing all counterfactual augmentations and then replace all labels with the ground truth label.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 510, + 487, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relevant only finetuning. The approach where only relevant context and the corresponding ground truth label are used during finetuning, which is shown to improve controllability in (Longpre et al., 2021). As a baseline for KAFT we remove all counterfactual and irrelevant augmentations and only keep the relevant slice of our finetuning data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 632, + 487, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "UQA V2. The Unified QA 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) model, which is a general purpose QA model finetuned on a collection of 20 QA datasets. We take the largest model (11B) in the UQA V2 family as a baseline and compare with KAFT T5 XXL which is of similar size in Fig. 2. Since UQA V2 contains SQuAD 2.0 in its training set, where the label for irrelevant context is an empty string, it", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 487, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "does not completely follow the noisy finetuning prescription introduced earlier.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 880, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KAFT noCF. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 411, + 882, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KAFT noCF and noTQA. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations and no TriviaQA slice.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 882, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We include more details on the hyper parameters of model finetuning, prompts, post processing, data filtering, and metric computations in the Appendix A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 500, + 882, + 563 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 575, + 606, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we measure the controllability and robustness of KAFT with the metrics defined in Sec. 3.7 and compare with baselines in Sec. 3.8.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 600, + 880, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Larger models may ignore more contexts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 877, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most benchmarks improve as a function of model size, including TriviaQA exact match (EM) accuracy, as shown in the first row of Fig. 1. However, we found that larger models may ignore the context more. This may happen for the pretrained model, but the behavior is especially severe for models finetuned on QA tasks using baseline approaches. We demonstrate this effect in the second row of Fig. 1. This highlights a need for designing new methods to improve the controllability of LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 678, + 882, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 KAFT and controllability", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 850, + 756, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One of the most striking phenomenon observable from Fig. 1 is that KAFT achieve immense improvements in controllability while maintaining", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2As a notable exception, SQuAD 2.0 has empty strings as labels for its irrelevant context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1779", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a7fdb80f9690d5d2c3b93532ad4b0fff0ffef0e2baf26c51a1b5ffa17329030c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: LLMs may become less controllable as the model size increases. Interestingly, KAFT significantly boosts controllability and robustness. The first row shows the EM on the wiki split of TriviaQA when one retrieved context is supplied. The second row shows the controllability when the context is in conflict with the pretrained model's knowledge. The third rows show robustness against human labelled irrelevant contexts from SQuAD 2.0." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 193, + 83, + 803, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance on standard QA. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 24X better controllability compared to the noisy finetuning when the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained factual knowledge, while performing similarly on regular contexts. In addition, KAFT is the only finetuning approach that consistently achieves better controllability than the pretrained models. Most of this gain originates from the counterfactual augmentation where the model explicitly learns the priority order in Eq. 1 when a conflict does appear. However both relevant only finetuning and KAFT without counterfactual augmentations also exhibit stronger controllability compared to noisy finetuning, even when there is no explicit counterfactual augmentations in both cases. The reason is that both approaches avoid irrelevant contexts that does not imply an answer. Thus the model is less prone to ignore the context compared to noisy finetuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 489, + 489, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 KAFT and robustness", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 813, + 332, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the pretrained model, the robustness decreased slightly from T5 XL to XXL and from PaLM 8B to 62B (see third row in Fig. 1). But the difference is small. Relevant only finetuning suffers the most loss because it does not have irrelevant contexts", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "during training. Noisy finetuning only alleviates this loss slightly, still vastly underperforming the pretrained model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 489, + 880, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KAFT, on the other hand, significantly boosts robustness. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 6X better robustness compared to noisy finetuning and 1.6X better robustness compared to the pretrained model. Adding the counterfactual augmentation slightly reduces robustness, but the difference is comparably small.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 539, + 882, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Analysis and ablation studies", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 668, + 784, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform ablation studies to understand the effect of different augmentations in KAFT, as well as the general effect of added context noise.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 692, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of KAFT data augmentations. In Fig. 2, we systematically reduce the sampling rate of different data augmentation slices when training KAFT-T5 XXL models. We observe that reducing or removing the counterfactual and irrelevant data augmentations severely reduces controllability and robustness, respectively. In addition, KAFT models significantly out-perform the very strong baselines of Unified QA V2 on both controllability and robustness, showing that KAFT cannot", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1780", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7426cb8caec8cba94e5750913d2fa77a5690f75e2acefbda63ad912bb80b15d6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodControllability PALM 62BControllability T5 XXLEst. Noise ratio from relevant slice of TQA
NoisyFT15%37%63%
KAFT noCF EM filter20%51%35%
KAFT noCF33%54%5%
KAFT noCF and noTQA52%69%0%
", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 80, + 783, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a86d16566fc0f3d7c5344da9ba1f682ab0003e3d633a26a6ed9f63081b72ac80.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Ablation studies on data mixture ratios showing the importance of KAFT augmentations. We add Unified QA (Khashabi et al., 2022) and noisy finetuning baselines for comparison." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 280, + 475, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1ada39997951454c96afb0baaff7db46e1d560055471a57484244eb59b1af32c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Context noise leads to model ignoring context and thus reduces controllability. We compare the controllability of models finetuned with different levels of context noise resulting from different filtering approaches on the training data. The noise ratio is estimated by sampling a small subset from the relevance slice of TriviaQA and manually checking the fraction of cases where the context does not entail the QA pair." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelPretrainedKAFT
T5 XL6.1%7.2%
T5 XXL6.6%6.8%
PaLM 8B3.3%4.1%
PaLM 62B1.4%1.3%
PaLM 540B0.6%0.7%
", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 581, + 420, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: The match rate between models' closed book answers and counterfactual answers, among all TriviaQA training set questions with counterfactual augmentations. KAFT shows little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "be replaced by simply adding more supervised data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 804, + 485, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KAFT models memorize few counterfactual. One potential risk of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. We find very little memorization: e.g., the KAFT-PALM 540B model only memorized $0.1\\%$ more counterfactuals compared to the pretrained PALM model after KAFT finetuning. Results for other models are similar (cf. Table. 6). The model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, rather than memorizing the counterfactual answers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 273, + 884, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context noise reduces controllability. By context noise we refer to the subset of training data where the model is required to produce an answer that is not implied by the provided context, or required to ignore the context while it actually imply the answer. On the flip side, we find that it is possible to achieve good controllability without explicit counterfactual augmentations if we can reduce context noise in the training data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table. 5 shows how different amounts of context noise impact the model's controllability. In particular, because TriviaQA contexts are produced by a retrieval system, it is not guaranteed that a context logically implies the answer. This is even true when the context contains exact matches of the answer. On the other hand, TReX, SQuAD and QASC contains much less context noise given our KAFT construction methods Sec. A.1. Due to this intrinsic noise, including TriviaQA in KAFT caused a negative impact on controllability, especially when there are no explicit counterfactual augmentations. The first row shows noisy finetuning, which contains the most noise. The last row shows that KAFT with TriviaQA data removed. Even though this model is not finetuned on TriviaQA, it has the best controllability. The second row uses a simpler and more noisy filter than KAFT by considering a context to be relevant if it contains the answer.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1781", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 247, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we analyzed the interaction between LLMs' parametric knowledge (stored in its model parameters) and knowledge contained in informational contexts provided as a part of the input sequence. We find that models are prone to ignoring the context, especially when the context is in conflict with the parametric knowledge. In addition, the model's output can be swayed by irrelevant context even when there is no logical link between such context and the model's task at hand. We quantitatively characterize these behaviours as controllability and robustness of LLMs when one attempts to control their working memory with noisy context. We proposed a new finetuning method, KAFT, that utilizes data augmentations to substantially boost the controllability and robustness of an LLM without significantly affecting its performance on standard QA tasks. With KAFT, we can build LLMs with a clear order of priority when utilizing information from difference sources, including its own parametric knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 492, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 250, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Multiple sources", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 487, + 290, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we trained a model that can utilize two sources of information with predefined priority order, with one of them being the model's own parametric knowledge. While this is the first step towards LLM's information utilization with clear, predefined priorities, we acknowledge that real world applications could be more nuanced. For example, KAFT may need to be expanded to treat multiple sources of information with different trustworthiness which may translate to the following desired priority order:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 508, + 489, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\text {r e l e v a n t} 1 > \\text {r e l e v a n t} 2 (5) \\\\ > \\text {m o d e l} > \\text {m o d e l} ^ {\\prime} \\text {p a r a m e t r i c k n o w l d e g l e} (6) \\\\ > \\text {r e l e v a n t} 3 (7) \\\\ > \\text {a l l i r r e l e v a n t c o m p e s t} (8) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 700, + 487, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This orders of priority determines the handling of conflicts. In addition, any irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 789, + 489, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Multitask / in-context learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 401, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KAFT currently only explores QA tasks. We acknowledge that the applications of LLMs go far beyond a single style of tasks. We have not yet", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "achieved controlled utilization of information in a task agnostic way. Ideally, the model should learn to prioritize retrieved relevant information in any task that LLMs are capable of, including in-context few-shot or zero-shot scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.3 Dynamically enforce \"learning to ignore\"", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 177, + 880, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, it was necessary to build a different KAFT dataset for each model. Because in Eq. 4, whenever the context is irrelevant, the model fits on to the pretrained model's answers which depends on the model. This presents additional workload when applying KAFT to new models. In future, it's worthwhile to explore a dynamic methods that generates closed booked answers during training. At each training step involving irrelevant context, we could run the forward pass twice, one with the provided context and another without. Then we can compute a new loss:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 199, + 884, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} r = 1: \\operatorname {L o s s} = \\operatorname {C E} \\left(M ^ {\\prime} (c + q), \\text {l a b e l}\\right) (9) \\\\ r = 0: \\operatorname {L o s s} = \\operatorname {C E} (M ^ {\\prime} (c + q), \\\\ \\operatorname {s t o p} _ {\\text {g r a d i e n t}} \\left(M ^ {\\prime} (q)\\right) (10) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 406, + 880, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $+$ denotes string concatenation. This is different from Eq. 4 as it fits on to the closed book answers of the current version of the finetuned model, rather than that of the pretrained model. It's not yet clear whether this would achieve better robustness. It's also more expensive because two forward passes are necessary for each training example. However it might be justified by the improved simplicity in directly applying KAFT with minimal prepossessing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 884, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This approach is somewhat similar to classifier free guidance (Ho and Salimans, 2022), which has been successfully applied to image generation models. One added benefit of classifier free guidance is the ability to tune the strength of context conditioning after the model is trained, which is another interesting direction to explore here.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 638, + 882, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Ethics statement: Broader impacts and potential risks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 763, + 880, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we study approaches to finetune LLMs to make them more grounded and faithful to provided contexts. If our method is applied broadly, it has the potential to correct the unwanted or biased behavior of LLMs with a carefully curated set of natural language instructions without expensive retraining. This provides one feasible avenue", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1782", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "towards improving language models to correct a potential bias that is embedded in the pretraining corpus. At the same time, we acknowledge that our method does not completely address such issues on its own, because 1) instances where the model's working memory is not controllable by the context even after KAFT is applied may remain; 2) the finetuning dataset used in KAFT may inadvertently introduce or strengthen certain biases. For example, we acknowledge that all KAFT datasets used in this study are English datasets, and so it is a valuable future work direction to extend KAFT to be more representative of all languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we acknowledge that the use of LLMs can be expensive in terms of energy usage. We utilize existing pretrained LLMs such as T5 and PaLM. KAFT's energy usage is small compared to the pretraining process, but it still leaves a significant energy footprint. In particular, the most expensive training, KAFT-PaLM 540B, takes 12190 TPU v4 hours. It is our hope that methods such as KAFT will provide a way for reducing the need for frequently retraining LLMs, and thus could lead to a more environmentally friendly experimentation.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 294, + 490, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 487, + 285, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to thank Slav Petrov for his insightful comments on an early draft of the paper that significantly helped improve the presentation of our work. We would also like to thank the reviewers and meta-reviewer for their thoughtful feedback on our submission.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 489, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 642, + 215, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "F. Gregory Ashby, Shawn W. Ell, Vivian V. Valentin, and Michael B. Casale. 2005. FROST: A Distributed Neurocomputational Model of Working Memory Maintenance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(11):1728-1743.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in NeurIPS, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 667, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.", + "Nicola De Cao, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2021. Editing factual knowledge in language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6491-6506, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL, pages 4171-4186.", + "Bhuwan Dhingra, Jeremy R Cole, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Daniel Gillick, Jacob Eisenstein, and William W Cohen. 2022. Time-aware language models as temporal knowledge bases. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:257-273.", + "Hady Elsahar, Pavlos Vougiouklis, Arslen Remaci, Christophe Gravier, Jonathon Hare, Frederique Laforest, and Elena Simperl. 2018. T-REx: A large scale alignment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).", + "Keisuke Fukuda and Geoffrey F. Woodman. 2017. Visual working memory buffers information retrieved from visual long-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114/20.", + "J M Fuster. 1973. Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal corre" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1783", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "lates of transient memory. Journal of Neurophysiology, 36(1):61-78. PMID: 4196203.", + "Karl H. Pribram George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt, New York.", + "Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2021. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5484-5495, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training.", + "Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-free diffusion guidance.", + "Zhiting Hu and Li Erran Li. 2022. A causal lens for controllable text generation. CoRR, abs/2201.09119.", + "Joel Jang, Seonghyeon Ye, Sohee Yang, Joongbo Shin, Janghoon Han, Gyeonghun KIM, Stanley Jungkyu Choi, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. Towards continual knowledge learning of language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mandar Joshi, Kenton Lee, Yi Luan, and Kristina Toutanova. 2020. Contextualized representations using textual encyclopedic knowledge. CoRR, abs/2004.12006.", + "Nora Kassner and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Negated and misprimed probes for pretrained language models: Birds can talk, but cannot fly. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7811-7818, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Daniel Khashabi, Yeganeh Kordi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Unifiedqa-v2: Stronger generalization via broader cross-format training.", + "Daniel Khashabi, Sewon Min, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. UNIFIEDQA: Crossing format boundaries with a single QA system. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1896-1907, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tushar Khot, Peter Clark, Michal Guerquin, Peter Alexander Jansen, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2020. Qasc: A dataset for question answering via sentence composition. ArXiv, abs/1910.11473.", + "Angeliki Lazaridou, Adhi Kuncoro, Elena Gribovskaya, Devang Agrawal, Adam Liska, Tayfun Terzi, Mai Gimenez, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Tomas Kocisky, Sebastian Ruder, Dani Yogatama, Kris Cao, Susannah Young, and Phil Blunsom. 2021. Mind the gap: Assessing temporal generalization in neural language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 29348-29363. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models.", + "Shayne Longpre, Kartik Perisetla, Anthony Chen, Nikhil Ramesh, Chris DuBois, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Entity-based knowledge conflicts in question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7052-7063, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Locating and editing factual knowledge in gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05262.", + "Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. 2022b. Mass-editing memory in a transformer.", + "Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Fast model editing at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Ella Neeman, Roee Aharoni, Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2022. to appear.", + "Katsuhiko Ogata. 1996. Modern Control Engineering (3rd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA.", + "Marwan Omar, Soohyeon Choi, DaeHun Nyang, and David Mohaisen. 2022. Robust natural language" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1784", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "processing: Recent advances, challenges, and future directions. CoRR, abs/2201.00768.", + "Yasumasa Onoe, Michael JQ Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2022. Entity cloze by date: What lms know about unseen entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02832.", + "Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. 2021. Contraqa: Question answering under contradicting contexts. CoRR, abs/2110.07803.", + "Fabio Petroni, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Aleksandra Pik-tus, Tim Rocktäschel, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H. Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. How context affects language models' factual predictions. CoRR, abs/2005.04611.", + "Fabio Petroni, Tim Roktaschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sottiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew Johnson, Blake Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Ed Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad.", + "Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910.", + "Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, Elton Zhang, Rewon Child, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, Julie Bernauer, Xia Song, Mohammad Shoeybi, Yuxiong He, Michael Houston, Saurabh Tiwary, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2022. Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing nlg 530b, a large-scale generative language model.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in NeurIPS.", + "Hanqing Zhang, Haolin Song, Shaoyu Li, Ming Zhou, and Dawei Song. 2022. A survey of controllable text generation using transformer-based pre-trained language models. CoRR, abs/2201.05337.", + "Chen Zhu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Manzil Zaheer, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Daliang Li, Felix Yu, and Sanjiv Kumar. 2020. Modifying memories in transformer models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00363." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 615, + 631, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Details on relevant context construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 642, + 868, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SQuAD 2.0 has human labels for this particular aspect. But most datasets do not. For TReX, the question is cloze style where we mask a certain entity within the triples statement. We build a relevant context by concatenating the original statements with a number of sampled irrelevant statements, after randomly shuffling their order. This ensures the relevance of the context while keeping it challenging. The training set of QASC provides 2 gold statements that implies the answer via a two hop reasoning. We are using the 2-stage retrieved collection of statements similar to (Khashabi et al., 2020). We find that the gold statements, or semantically equivalent ones, often exist in the retrieved results. To improve relevance we will randomly add one of the two golden statements and mix it in", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 661, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1785", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the retrieved context to build a relevant context for the KAFT training set. We manually checked on a random small subset that this ensures a relevance ratio around $90\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TriviaQA is especially challenging because there is no human labeled gold context, while all existing contexts are obtained by a retrieval system. We filter the context by whether they contain the answer. This turned out to be insufficient and leaves a large fraction of irrelevant contexts that do not logically entail the answer. We apply additional filters based on the unigram overlaps of the context with the question, as well as based on the output of a logically entailment model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 489, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Training Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 325, + 292, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use a learning rate of 0.0002 on all models. The batch size is 32 for all PaLM models and 16 for T5 models. For T5 XL we pick the checkpoint at 100000 finetune steps and for T5 XXL models we pick the checkpoint at 90000 steps. For PaLM 8B and 62B, we pick the checkpoint at 40000 finetuning steps. For PaLM 540B we pick the checkpoint at 15000 steps. These steps are generally determined by avoiding overfitting. However for larger models we are also constrained by compute resources.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 347, + 489, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Knowledge Probing Prompts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 538, + 391, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we provide details on how the knowledge probing prompts in Table 7-9 are constructed. In particular, our goal is to make the model only answer questions where it knows the answer. To do this, we construct prompts that contains two types of QA pairs:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 561, + 489, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Regular QA pairs if the model can answer the specific question correctly in multiple few-shot in-context settings.", + "2. QA pairs where the answer is \"I don't know\" for T5 models or \"?\" for PaLM models, if the model cannot answer the question correctly in most few-shot in-context settings." + ], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 671, + 485, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With such specially designed prompts, we encourage the model to abstain if it does not know the answer. The counterfactual context used in the controllability benchmark is constructed using the same method. However we ensure no entities overlaps exist between the prompts that generates the training data vs the test data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Counterfactual Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 771, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. This is done in 3 steps:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 882, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. We apply a diverse set of few-shot prompts similar to Table 10 to condition a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate plausible counterfactual answers.", + "2. We remove examples if the generation is unsuccessful, when it's either too long or have a large overlap with the original answer.", + "3. We replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer in the original context to build the counterfactual context." + ], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 181, + 880, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With this approach, we build a new QA data set where the answer implied by the context is likely to be in conflict with the model's existing knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 369, + 882, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Evaluations for Counterfactual memorization and relevance classification", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 445, + 805, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One potential danger of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. The results in Table 6 show that KAFT has little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers. Instead the model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, as demonstrated in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 499, + 882, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As illustrated in Table 1 and described in Table 3, we require the model to generate its judgements on whether the provided context is relevant. As a sanity check, we evaluated this part of the output on 1000 class-balanced SQuAD2 validation questions, the relevance prediction from KAFT-T5-XXL has $84\\%$ precision and $98\\%$ recall.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 676, + 882, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 Postprocessing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 801, + 675, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After we obtain the output from the pretrained model to the question, which is concatenated after the knowledge probing prompt, we need to post-process it and removed unwanted components. We do two types of post-processing on the pretrained predictions:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1786", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ed36c4f22a98f51998a00662a2da7b2459c9b1064bf502a5a875ce75de093506.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelStandard QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: what was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future? A: I don't know.Q: What is the term for a hyperactive immune system that attacks normal tissues? A: autoimmunity.Q: What complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability? A: I don't know.Q: Which nation contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: The symbol for mercuric oxide is? A: HgO.Q: What religion did the Yuan discourage, to support Buddhism? A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: What King and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group? A: Henry IV.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: Who was the US Secretary of State in 2001? A: Colin Bowell.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.Q: When did the European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli? A: 2012.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: When did Costa v ENEL take place? A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: New York Bay.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: When was the Parental Leave directive created? A: 1996.Q: How many megaregions are there in the United States? A: 11.Q: Where is D'Olier Street? A: Dublin.Q: What is the speed limit set to reduce consumption? A: 55 mph.Q: What channel replaced Sky Travel? A: Sky Three.Q: Who founded McKinsey & Company? A: James O. McKinsey.
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 197, + 875, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Knowledge probing prompts for standard QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in SQuAD 2.0 and TriviaQA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 778, + 882, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1787", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/44beca66f467d7aba510c55648622b10365229fdf23d88e9d4baae684adc20ca.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelCloze Style QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\n__formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?.\nSupply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.\n__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.\n__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts.\n__ was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future. A: ?\n__ is defined as a hyperactive immune system attacking normal tissues? A: autoimmunity.\n__ complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability. A: ?\n__ contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nSupply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.\n__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.\n__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts.\nThe French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism.\nThe symbol for mercuric oxide is _. A: HgO.\nThe Yuan discouraged _ to support Buddhism. A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nKing _ and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group. A: Henry IV.\nThe principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution. A: Charles Darwin.\n__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\n__ was the US Secretary of State in 2001. A: Colin Bowell.\nThe principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.\n__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels. A: Siegfried.\nThe European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli in year_. A: 2012.\nThe French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism.\nCosta v ENEL happend in year_. A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: New York Bay.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nThe Parental Leave directive created in year_. A: 1996.\nThere are __ megaregions in the United States. A: 11.\nD'Olier Street is located in_. A: Dublin.\nThe speed limit was set to _ to reduce consumption. A: 55 mph.\n__ channel replaced Sky Travel. A: Sky Three.\n__ founded McKinsey & Company. A: James O. McKinsey.
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 87, + 796, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/36dd1a77b3fa924d3f769dcfce302e141016fe41a171d79ce3340dc3d7c5b5bd.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMultiple Choice QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
PaLM 62BQuestion: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? (A) The great lakes (B) Amazon river (C) The red sea (D) the Atlantic Ocean (E) San Francisco bay (F) The north sea (G) Indian Ocean (H) Lake Mississippi -Answer: (D) the Atlantic Ocean. \nQuestion: Who was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? (A) Donald Trump (B) Miho Nonaka (C) Andrew Yang (D) a France citizen (E) a political outsider (F) Shinzo Abe (G) woman (H) Zoe. -Answer: (F) Shinzo Abe. Question: what increases moisture? (A) density (B) the sun (C) wind (D) droughts (E) Honey (F) 17 (G) rain (H) meat -Answer: (G) rain. \nQuestion: What can be found inside a cell? (A) soil (B) dogs (C) ovum (D) starfish (E) Most plants (F) RNA (G) washer (H) abundant -Answer: (F) RNA. \nQuestion: What kind of coloring do chromoplasts make? (A) fat (B) move (C) RNA (D) grow (E) red (F) skin (G) eyes (H) DNA -Answer: (E) red.
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 709, + 768, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 889, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1788", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/07bb809c4656c560af0f9a4d75636af99ffb4a6e54492b975906a019855aee50.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
QuestionIn which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance?
Original answerHungary
Counterfactual answerRussia
Original contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Hungary.
Counterfactual contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Russia.
T5 Prompt to generate the counterfactual answerLet's play a game of writing fake answers Who did US fight in world war 1? Real answer: Germany. Fake answer: Somalia. Who is the CEO of Amazon? Real Answer: Jeff Bezos. Fake Answer: Richard D. Fairbank. ...7 more examples ... In which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance? Real answer: Hungary. Fake answer: <extra_id_0>.
", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 80, + 838, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: An example from the counterfactual split of the KAFT training set. We take an original question, answer, and context triple. We then use a few examples to prompt a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a plausible counterfactual answer. Finally, we replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer to build the counterfactual context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 328, + 882, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. Truncation: We truncate the model's output on special tokens such as $<$ extra_id_1 >, punctuation, line change symbols and question/context initialization symbols such as \"Q:\", \"Question:\", \" CONTEXT:\", These symbols are a frequent in the pretrained model's responds to our QA style knowledge probe prompts and indicate that the model is ready to move on to the next question that is unrelated to the answer of the current question.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 400, + 489, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. Abstain: We normalize all abstain symbols. Whenever the model indicate abstaining using either \"I don't know\", \"unsure\" or \"?\" in the output as responses to our prompt, we record \"unsure\" as its answer when constructing the label in the irrelevant slices of KAFT.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 568, + 489, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.7 Dataset and task details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 674, + 352, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KAFT mixes together a number of datasets, each with multiple augmentation slices. During training, data from these difference sources are sampled in a round-robin style according to predefined mixture weights. We list these weights as well as the corresponding dataset stats as in Table 11. The sampling ratio from each slice is computed using a product of the normalized dataset level rate and the normalized slice level rate as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 695, + 489, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nR (d, s) = \\frac {r _ {d}}{\\sum_ {d ^ {\\prime}} r _ {d ^ {\\prime}}} \\frac {r _ {d s}}{\\sum_ {s ^ {\\prime}} r _ {d s ^ {\\prime}}} \\tag {11}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 846, + 487, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $d, d'$ denote different datasets and $s, s'$ denote difference slices within each dataset. For ex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ample, the sampling ratio from the QASC relevant slice is given by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 882, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} R (Q A S C, r e l e v a n t) \\\\ = \\frac {0 . 3}{1 . 3 + 0 . 3 + 0 . 1 + 0 . 2} \\frac {0 . 5}{0 . 5 + 0 . 2 5 + 0 . 0 2} \\\\ = 0. 0 8 3 1 \\tag {12} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 445, + 880, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The KAFT-TriviaQA training set contains 45593 relevant examples and 72697 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-QASC training set contains 8134 relevant examples and the same number of irrelevant examples. The KAFT-SQuAD2 dataset contains 78125 relevant examples and 117287 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-TReX training set contains 75365 relevant examples and 47503 irrelevant examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 531, + 884, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.8 Licensing and scientific artifacts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 688, + 811, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we used the following scientific artifacts: TriviaQA is licensed under Apache License 2.0. The SQuAD 2.0 dataset is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. T-REx is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. QASC is under CC BY license. T5 models are under Apache License 2.0. Unified QA models are under Apache License 2.0. The PaLM models are proprietary. All these artifacts are properly cited when we mention them the first time. Our use for these artifacts are consistent with their licenses.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 709, + 882, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We create the following scientific artifacts and we will partly release them after this paper is pub", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1789", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/426e7df952204ea06aa8ed1ce66fdca7b26b20e48cc3a0fa50e15e5893abd445.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 11: Task mixture weights. During finetuning, training data from each split is computed in a round robin fashion according to these weights. The sampling rate from each slice is computed with these weights using in Eq. 12. Here \"relevant\", \"irrelevant\", \"empty\" indicates the relevance (or absence) of the context relative to the question, and \"counterfactual\" indicates counterfactual context constructed using answer replacement. The additional specification for irrelevant/empty slices, \"correct\", \"abstain\", and \"other\" indicate the pretrained model's answers' type and quality relative to the ground truth. For TReX, we have a special slice called \"2-hop relevant\". These are relevant contexts contracted using 2-hop reasoning over the triplet structure of TReX." + ], + "table_body": "
datasetdataset weightsliceslice weight
SQuAD 2.01.3relevant0.8
counterfactual0.1
original irrelevant abstain0.1
original irrelevant other0.1
empty correct0.33
empty abstain0.02
empty other0.05
sampled irrelevant correct0.33
sampled irrelevant abstain0.02
sampled irrelevant other0.03
QASC0.3relevant0.5
irrelevant correct0.25
irrelevant other0.02
TReX0.1relevant0.4
counterfactual0.4
2-hop relevant6
irrelevant correct0.15
irrelevant abstain0.03
irrelevant other0.03
TriviaQA0.2relevant0.8
counterfactual0.15
irrelevant/empty correct0.5
irrelevant/empty other0.2
", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 256, + 737, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1790", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lished: The KAFT finetuning method will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-T5 models will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-PaLM models will be proprietary.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 489, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1791", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 6", + "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? section 7", + "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract and section 1", + "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 695, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 299, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 1-5", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 220, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 1-5", + "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A.8", + "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix A.8", + "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We use well established public datasets that are constructed based on publicly available information.", + "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sec 1-5, Appendix A.8", + "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 346, + 880, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sec 3-4", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 785, + 191, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Sec 1-4, Sec 7, Appendix A", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1792", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4, Appendix A", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Jax" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 878, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1793", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_model.json b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da6392b4d805a70224388ae0e7bad2d26334523b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3133 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.091, + 0.817, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.131, + 0.816, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daliang Li\\*, Ankit Singh Rawat\\*, Manzil Zaheer\\*, Xin Wang\\*, Michal Lukasik\\*, Andreas Veit\\*, Felix Yu\\*, Sanjiv Kumar\\*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.166, + 0.802, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Google Research New York \\(\\hat{\\mathbb{O}}\\) Google DeepMind New York {daliangli, ankitsrawat, manzilzaheer} @google.com {wanxin, mlukasik, aveit, felixyu, sanjivk} @google.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.283, + 0.461, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have led to a series of breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP), partly owing to the massive amounts of world knowledge they memorize during pretraining. While many downstream applications provide the model with an informational context to aid its underlying task, how the model's world knowledge interacts with the factual information presented in the context remains under explored. As a desirable behavior, an LLM should give precedence to the context whenever it contains task-relevant information that conflicts with the model's memorized knowledge. This enables model predictions to be grounded in the context, which then facilitates updating specific model predictions without frequently retraining the model. By contrast, when the context is irrelevant to the task, the model should ignore it and fall back on its internal knowledge. In this paper, we undertake a first joint study of the aforementioned two properties, namely controllability and robustness, in the context of LLMs. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art T5 and PaLM models (both pretrained and finetuned) could exhibit low controllability and robustness that does not improve with increasing the model size. As a solution, we propose a simple yet effective method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to strengthen both controllability and robustness by injecting counterfactual and irrelevant contexts to standard supervised datasets. Our comprehensive evaluation showcases the utility of KAFT across model architectures and sizes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.796, + 0.26, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) pretrained on large scale datasets have shown promising results across natural language tasks (Vaswani et al., 2017; Devlin et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020a; Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022). However, as models scale ever larger," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "they become more expensive to train, making it unrealistic to frequently update model parameters. On the other hand, many real world applications often necessitate adjusting model behavior. This dilemma is especially sharp in the case of factual (world) knowledge that plays important role in realizing impressive performance of LLMs. It is well known that LLMs memorize large amounts of factual knowledge in their parameters (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020; Geva et al., 2021), which could potentially be out-dated or incorrect. Even for moderate-size models, it is prohibitively expensive to retrain every time an update happens or a mistake is uncovered. Even if resources are ample, it is difficult to ensure that the modification of model parameters do not affect unrelated skills or knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.531, + 0.885, + 0.836 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In human cognition, working memory (George A. Miller, 1960) provides the biological brain with the ability to hold information temporarily to perform tasks such as conversation, reasoning, and mathematics in a way that is adaptive to the ever-changing environment. As shown both experimentally and theoretically (Fuster, 1973; Ashby et al., 2005), working memory is stored in sustained activations of neurons, as opposed to the long term memory which is stored in weights. Working memory is also the immediate information buffer that is accessed while performing conscious tasks. In particular, it is where the fusion of perceptual inputs and long term memory happens (Fukuda and Woodman, 2017). This suggests that a potential method to solve LLMs' pointwise knowledge update and correction problem is to control the working memory stored in activations, rather than editing the long term memory stored in the model weights." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As demonstrated by their powerful in-context few shot learning abilities (Brown et al., 2020), LLM could utilize different activation patterns resulting from different contexts during inference to solve a diverse set of tasks without any changes in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1774" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.769, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1774-1793 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.175, + 0.082, + 0.833, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ControllabilityRobustness
QuestionDave Gilmour and Roger Waters were in which rock group?How has British art survived in Normandy?
ContextGeorge Roger Waters (born 6 September 1943) is an English singer, ... Later that year, he re-united with The Rolling Stones bandmates Mason, Wright and David Gilmour...In Britain, Norman art primarily survives as stonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts...
KAFT (ours)The Rolling Stones (from context).In museums (irrelevant context).
Noisy FTPink Floydstonework or metalwork
UQA V2 11BPink Floydstonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts
PretrainedPink FloydAs stonework and metalwork, such as capi-tals and baptismal fonts
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.325, + 0.885, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Examples of model outputs demonstrating that, in contrast with baselines, a model obtained by KAFT is characterized by both improved controllability by a context that contradicts its parametric knowledge, and improved robustness against an irrelevant context, compared to baseline methods. Here, Pretrained refers to a T5 XXL model (Raffel et al., 2020b), which is also the underlying model for KAFT and Noisy Finetuning (FT). UQA V2 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) is based on the T5 11B model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.412, + 0.49, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the weights. It is natural to expect that the same would be true with factual knowledge. In particular, one could prepare a large list of natural language statements covering desired knowledge updates and corrections. At inference time, one can provide the relevant statements as context along with the input and hope that the model would perform the task based on the new knowledge presented in this context. Thus, if the model's working memory is indeed controllable by context, then a single model with static long term memory can produce different results based on a varying set of facts available in different contexts. However, we demonstrate that this approach may fall short for existing LLMs as they have great tendencies to ignore the context and stick to their own parametric knowledge – the world knowledge stored in its model parameters. This raises a natural question:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.707, + 0.489, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Is it possible to design a mechanism to ensure that the context can reliably influence the model's working memory?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that any such mechanism has to take into account the possibility of encountering noisy contexts. For example, any retrieval system that selects the task-relevant context from a large collection of contexts will be imperfect and occasionally provide irrelevant context. In such cases, it's desirable that the model prediction does not get swayed by an irrelevant context. Interestingly, we show that the standard pretraining and finetuning methods do not ensure this behavior either. In fact, we demonstrate" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.412, + 0.882, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "that it's the noise encountered during the training that often leads to the model ignoring the context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.444, + 0.885, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we provide an affirmative answer to the aforementioned question and propose a novel approach – knowledge-aware finetuning (KAFT) – to make an LLM's working memory controllable via relevant context while being robust against irrelevant context. Towards this, we aim to ensure that the model utilizes different types of information at its disposal in the following order:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.562, + 0.583, + 0.685, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "relevant context" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.58, + 0.602, + 0.882, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(>\\) model's parametric knowledge (1)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.581, + 0.622, + 0.882, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(>\\) irrelevant context, (2)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.58, + 0.602, + 0.882, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.884, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( a > b \\) indicates that \\( a \\) is prioritized over \\( b \\). Thus, if the model decides that the context is relevant, it should ground its output in the context, ensuring the controllability of its working memory by the context. This is crucial when the context is in conflict with the model's parametric knowledge. On the other hand, when the context is irrelevant, the model should instead stick to its parametric knowledge; thus ensuring robustness of its working memory against noise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions. We develop first LLMs that utilize different knowledge sources with a predefined order of priorities. Along the way, we develop a systematic understanding of the working memories of LLMs and identify their shortcomings. Our key contributions are summarized below." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1775" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
RobustnessControllability
Standard (noisy) finetuning✗✗
Counterfactual finetuning \n(Longpre et al., 2021)✗✓
KAFT (our work)✓✓
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.176, + 0.435, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Summary of our contributions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We undertake a systematic joint study of both controllability and robustness of the working memory of LLMs. Focusing on question answering (QA) tasks, we define the context-question relevance based on whether the context entails an answer to the question. We create a novel benchmark to measure the controllability by including contexts that imply an answer which contradicts the model's pretrained knowledge.1 Similarly, we benchmark robustness against irrelevant contexts. We conduct an extensive evaluation of LLMs with different sizes across multiple architectures (encoder-decoder and decoder-only) from T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) family. We make the following key observations:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.446, + 0.49, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) LLMs could exhibit low controllability. Our experiments consistently show that both pretrained and QA finetuned LLMs tend to ignore a context when it contradicts with model's world knowledge. We show that this problem persists and may intensify as the model becomes larger. We further show that the noise in the (QA) finetuning set plays an important role in emergence of this behavior (cf. Sec. 4.2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.592, + 0.49, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) LLMs may not be robust against context noise. We demonstrate that both pretrained and QA finetuned models are strongly interfered by irrelevant contexts, especially the ones that are on the same general topic as the underlying question (cf. Sec. 4.3)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.446, + 0.49, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.691, + 0.49, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. We propose a novel method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to directly enhance both controllability (Eq. 1) and robustness (Eq. 2) of an LLM. KAFT enhances the controllability by creating counterfactual data augmentations where the answer entity in the context is swapped to a different but plausible entity, in conflict with the ground truth (and potentially the model's world knowledge). As for enhancing robustness, KAFT requires that the model should predict its pretrained closed-book answer rather than the ground truth answer whenever the context is irrelevant." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we show that KAFT-based models successfully demonstrate the coexistence of controllability and robustness of model's working memory (see Table 1 for an illustration)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.181, + 0.673, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Works" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.209, + 0.885, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "World knowledge in language models. Recent works established that LLMs memorize factual information present in the pretraining corpus. E.g., Petroni et al. (2019) utilize language model analysis (LAMA) probing to show that BERT models (Devlin et al., 2018) could act as knowledge bases. Roberts et al. (2020) reported similar findings for T5 models. It is therefore common practice to employ LLMs in tasks like closed book QA (Chowdhery et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.388, + 0.885, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge update in language models. Given that factual knowledge is ever-evolving, outdated memory of LLMs may lead to incorrect predictions (Lazaridou et al., 2021; Onoe et al., 2022). Furthermore, during deployment, one may unearth mistakes that need correction. Frequent retraining from scratch with an updated and corrected corpus would be prohibitively expensive. Ideas around finetuning (Zhu et al., 2020) and continued learning (Jang et al., 2022) train the model with less but still significant resources. Multiple recent efforts have studied how these models store the factual knowledge (Geva et al., 2021) and methods to update model parameters given new knowledge (De Cao et al., 2021; Dhingra et al., 2022; Mitchell et al., 2022; Meng et al., 2022a,b). These strategies change weights in response to single updates, risking inadvertently affecting unrelated skills or knowledge and creating burden to potentially store multiple versions of LLMs. We focus on updating the model behavior by providing a suitable context and ensuring that the model's working memory is controllable by such contexts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contextual and parametric knowledge. Guu et al. (2020); Joshi et al. (2020); Petroni et al. (2020) utilized retrieved context to assist language models in tasks such as QA. At the same time, LLMs memorize large amounts of knowledge in their parameters. Despite this dichotomy, only a few studies have previously addressed the relation between these two very different knowledge sources. Longpre et al. (2021) find that larger models have a greater tendency to ignore context in" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1We rely on in-context prompts in a closed book QA setup to measure the model's parametric knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1776" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "favor of their own parametric knowledge, and that the noise in the context in the finetuning set plays a big role in causing this behavior. We incorporate the algorithms proposed by Longpre et al. (2021) for mitigating this problem as baselines in Sec. 4.4 (the Relevant Only Finetuning approaches), where we find such baselines lack robustness against irrelevant contexts (Fig. 1, 2). Kassner and Schütze (2020) showed that language models tend to be easily misled by certain types of irrelevant contexts. We observe similar phenomena in QA and show that our proposed KAFT leads to more robust models against irrelevant contexts. Finally, Pan et al. (2021) considers a scenario where some context sources may be less trustworthy than the model's parametric knowledge. This scenario can be captured by an extension of our framework Eq.(1-2). For example, given three sources, one could enforce the following precedence order: source1 > source2 > model's own knowledge > source3 > irrelevant contexts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.439, + 0.49, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Notions of controllability and robustness. In control theory, controllability (Ogata, 1996) refers to the ability of using external inputs to manipulate system to reach all possible states. In the spirit of this definition, this paper measures the controllability of an LM's working memory by external contexts. In the framework of controlled text generation (Zhang et al., 2022; Hu and Li, 2022), the notion of controllability explored here is a special type of fine-grained semantic control of the model's behavior with the content of the context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.631, + 0.49, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Notions of robustness. (Liang et al., 2022; Omar et al., 2022) survey many notions of robustness of language models around the notion of the invariance of model's behaviors when the input is perturbed (for example, expressing similar semantic meanings in different ways). Our robustness benchmark is an extreme and input-dependent version under this framework. In our evaluations, the input contains two parts: the context and the question. In this work, a robust model's response is invariant to large perturbations in the semantic content of the context, as long as these changes are not relevant to the question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During the preparation of this manuscript, we were made aware of a parallel and independent investigation by Neeman et al. (2022) that shares some important aspects of our work." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.083, + 0.872, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Context typeTarget sequence
relevant context${ground truth answer}\n(from context)
irrelevant context${pretrained model's answer}\n(irrelevant context)
empty context${pretrained model's answer}\n(empty context)
counterfactual context${counterfactual answer}\n是从 context)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.227, + 0.862, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The output formats of the KAFT model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.256, + 0.621, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.281, + 0.884, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For concreteness, consider a reading comprehension QA task where the model takes question \\( q \\) together with a context \\( c \\) as its input. The question has an answer label \\( a \\). We also need a relevance label \\( r \\) denoting whether \\( c \\) entails \\( a \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.362, + 0.884, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Starting with a pretrained LM \\(M\\), we would like to build a model \\(M^{\\prime}\\) such that when the context \\(c\\) is relevant, its answer is always grounded in \\(c\\), when \\(c\\) is irrelevant, it sticks to the pretrained model's answer. In equations:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.57, + 0.454, + 0.882, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nr = 1: \\quad M ^ {\\prime} (c + q) = a \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.571, + 0.473, + 0.882, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nr = 0: \\quad M ^ {\\prime} (c + q) = M (q) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.502, + 0.885, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( + \\) denotes string concatenation. This establishes the priority order of knowledge sources as in Eq. (1 & 2): if there is a conflict between a relevant context \\( c \\) and \\( M \\)'s parametric knowledge, then the output should be consistent with \\( c \\). In addition, irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output. Note that even though we are separating relevant vs irrelevant context here, the model does not know \\( r \\) a priori. It has to determine \\( r \\) based on the semantics of \\( c \\) and \\( q \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.664, + 0.884, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the KAFT data, \\( r = 1 \\) cases include relevant or counterfactual context, where \\( a \\) is the ground truth or counterfactual answer, respectively; \\( r = 0 \\) cases include empty or irrelevant contexts. Here the label is given by the pretrained model's answer to the same question in a few-shot closed book setting, reflecting the model's parametric knowledge. To provide more interpretability, we make the model output its classification of the context's relevance along side the answer itself. See Table 3 for details." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.851, + 0.623, + 0.864 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We construct KAFT based on several public datasets, including SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), T-REx (Elsahar et al., 2018), QASC (Khot" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1777" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2020), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). They cover several different QA formats, including multiple choice (QASC), Cloze (TReX), extractive (SQuAD), and open domain (TriviaQA). For each dataset, we may construct different types of context and corresponding labels as summarized in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.196, + 0.22, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.218, + 0.49, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We select two families of pretrained LLMs: T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) representing the encoder-decoder architecture and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) representing the decoder only architecture. We include all three PaLM models (8B, 62B and 540B), while with T5 we restrict to the largest sizes (XL and XXL, with 3B and 11B parameters, respectively) because the smaller ones do not respond well to in-context few shot prompts, making it difficult to measure their parametric knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.394, + 0.293, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Relevant context" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.416, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We define the relevance of a context by whether it logically entails an answer to the question, which is a strong requirement - even if a piece of context is on the same topic of the question or contain the answer label, it might still be irrelevant. In practice, this happens often among retrieved results. In Sec 4.4, we show that if the model is still required to fit on to the ground truth label when given an irrelevant context, then the model becomes more likely to ignore relevant contexts. It is therefore crucial to strive towards precise logical entailment when building relevant context. We apply several techniques to improve the semantic connection between the context and the QA pair as shown in Table. 4. More details can be found in Appendix A.1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.672, + 0.308, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Irrelevant Context" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An irrelevant context is any context that does not entail the answer. An easy irrelevant context is completely off topic. We obtain them with random sampling for all datasets. A hard irrelevant context is on the same topic, sometimes discussing the same entities involved in the QA pair but does not logically entail the answer. SQuAD 2.0 already contains human labels on whether the answer can be derived from the context, thus providing hard irrelevant contexts. TriviaQA provides somewhat extensive paraphrases for each answer. We filter the retrieved contexts to find ones that do not contain any answer paraphrase, and use them as hard irrelevant context." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.796, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Probing pretrained knowledge" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.107, + 0.885, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first use the pretrained model to generate \\( M(q) \\) in Eq. 4, which are then used to assemble the KAFT finetuning dataset according to Eq. 4. We use hand-engineered few-shot knowledge probing prompts that condition the model to answer a question according to its world knowledge acquired during pretraining. In Appendix A.3, we provide more details on the construction of these prompts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.248, + 0.684, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.6 Counterfactuals" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.27, + 0.885, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. Given a triple of question, answer, and relevant context, we use a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a triple of question, counterfactual answer, and counterfactual context with prompt engineering. We apply several filtering and postprocessing techniques to ensure the quality. Details are given in Appendix A.4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.443, + 0.618, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.7 Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.464, + 0.882, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we define metrics that measures controllability and robustness. All results are from single runs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.523, + 0.884, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Controllability. To measure controllability, we supply the model with a counterfactual context and examine whether it can output the corresponding counterfactual answer. For a fair comparison, we select questions which all five pretrained models can answer correctly in a closed book few-shot setting, which are referred to as head questions. Since they are likely well represented in the pretraining set, such questions are challenging as we swap the answer to counterfactuals. Since we don't have any paraphrases of the counterfactual answer, we choose to use thresholded unigram recall to measure the performance. In particular, a model output is rated positive if the output of the model contains \\(>80\\%\\) of the answer unigrams, with stop-words removed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.792, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robustness. To measure robustness, we use the human labeled \"impossible\" slice of SQuAD 2.0, since SQuAD 2.0 contains many examples where the context is on the same general topic of the question but does not contain the answer. We measure the rate when the model successfully avoids extracting answers from such irrelevant contexts. The avoidance is considered successful if the con" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1778" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.082, + 0.837, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetRelevant ContextIrrelevant contextCounterfactual context
TReLUSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statementSampledSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statement with the answer entity replaced
SQuAD 2.0From original datasetOriginal human labeled and sampledRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
QASC2-stage retrieved statements and one golden statementSampledNone
TriviaQA (wiki split)Retrieved contexts containing the answer and overlapping with the questionRetrieved contexts that do not contain the answerRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.299, + 0.884, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: A summary of the KAFT data construction. For relevant context, counterfactual context, and irrelevant/empty context, the corresponding answer labels are ground truth answer, counterfactual answer, and pretrained model's few shot closed book answer, respectively. All four datasets also include examples where no context is provided." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.372, + 0.489, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "text contains less than \\(50\\%\\) of the unigrams in the model's prediction, removing stop words." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.416, + 0.235, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.8 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.437, + 0.489, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pretrained. We evaluate the pretrained model's controllability and robustness in a zero shot reading comprehension QA setup. The context is concatenated with the question in input sequence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.511, + 0.489, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noisy finetuning. In this approach, the label is the ground truth answer whether the context is relevant or not. This is a standard method implicitly used in most QA datasets.2 In this work, we construct this baseline for KAFT by first removing all counterfactual augmentations and then replace all labels with the ground truth label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.633, + 0.489, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relevant only finetuning. The approach where only relevant context and the corresponding ground truth label are used during finetuning, which is shown to improve controllability in (Longpre et al., 2021). As a baseline for KAFT we remove all counterfactual and irrelevant augmentations and only keep the relevant slice of our finetuning data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.755, + 0.489, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "UQA V2. The Unified QA 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) model, which is a general purpose QA model finetuned on a collection of 20 QA datasets. We take the largest model (11B) in the UQA V2 family as a baseline and compare with KAFT T5 XXL which is of similar size in Fig. 2. Since UQA V2 contains SQuAD 2.0 in its training set, where the label for irrelevant context is an empty string, it" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.372, + 0.882, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "does not completely follow the noisy finetuning prescription introduced earlier." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.412, + 0.884, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KAFT noCF. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.453, + 0.884, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KAFT noCF and noTQA. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations and no TriviaQA slice." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.501, + 0.884, + 0.564 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We include more details on the hyper parameters of model finetuning, prompts, post processing, data filtering, and metric computations in the Appendix A.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.576, + 0.608, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.601, + 0.882, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we measure the controllability and robustness of KAFT with the metrics defined in Sec. 3.7 and compare with baselines in Sec. 3.8." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.878, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Larger models may ignore more contexts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.68, + 0.884, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most benchmarks improve as a function of model size, including TriviaQA exact match (EM) accuracy, as shown in the first row of Fig. 1. However, we found that larger models may ignore the context more. This may happen for the pretrained model, but the behavior is especially severe for models finetuned on QA tasks using baseline approaches. We demonstrate this effect in the second row of Fig. 1. This highlights a need for designing new methods to improve the controllability of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.851, + 0.757, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 KAFT and controllability" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One of the most striking phenomenon observable from Fig. 1 is that KAFT achieve immense improvements in controllability while maintaining" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2As a notable exception, SQuAD 2.0 has empty strings as labels for its irrelevant context." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1779" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.084, + 0.805, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.407, + 0.884, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: LLMs may become less controllable as the model size increases. Interestingly, KAFT significantly boosts controllability and robustness. The first row shows the EM on the wiki split of TriviaQA when one retrieved context is supplied. The second row shows the controllability when the context is in conflict with the pretrained model's knowledge. The third rows show robustness against human labelled irrelevant contexts from SQuAD 2.0." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.49, + 0.49, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance on standard QA. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 24X better controllability compared to the noisy finetuning when the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained factual knowledge, while performing similarly on regular contexts. In addition, KAFT is the only finetuning approach that consistently achieves better controllability than the pretrained models. Most of this gain originates from the counterfactual augmentation where the model explicitly learns the priority order in Eq. 1 when a conflict does appear. However both relevant only finetuning and KAFT without counterfactual augmentations also exhibit stronger controllability compared to noisy finetuning, even when there is no explicit counterfactual augmentations in both cases. The reason is that both approaches avoid irrelevant contexts that does not imply an answer. Thus the model is less prone to ignore the context compared to noisy finetuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.814, + 0.334, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 KAFT and robustness" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the pretrained model, the robustness decreased slightly from T5 XL to XXL and from PaLM 8B to 62B (see third row in Fig. 1). But the difference is small. Relevant only finetuning suffers the most loss because it does not have irrelevant contexts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.882, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "during training. Noisy finetuning only alleviates this loss slightly, still vastly underperforming the pretrained model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.54, + 0.884, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KAFT, on the other hand, significantly boosts robustness. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 6X better robustness compared to noisy finetuning and 1.6X better robustness compared to the pretrained model. Adding the counterfactual augmentation slightly reduces robustness, but the difference is comparably small." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.669, + 0.785, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Analysis and ablation studies" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.693, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform ablation studies to understand the effect of different augmentations in KAFT, as well as the general effect of added context noise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of KAFT data augmentations. In Fig. 2, we systematically reduce the sampling rate of different data augmentation slices when training KAFT-T5 XXL models. We observe that reducing or removing the counterfactual and irrelevant data augmentations severely reduces controllability and robustness, respectively. In addition, KAFT models significantly out-perform the very strong baselines of Unified QA V2 on both controllability and robustness, showing that KAFT cannot" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1780" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.082, + 0.784, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodControllability PALM 62BControllability T5 XXLEst. Noise ratio from relevant slice of TQA
NoisyFT15%37%63%
KAFT noCF EM filter20%51%35%
KAFT noCF33%54%5%
KAFT noCF and noTQA52%69%0%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.885, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Context noise leads to model ignoring context and thus reduces controllability. We compare the controllability of models finetuned with different levels of context noise resulting from different filtering approaches on the training data. The noise ratio is estimated by sampling a small subset from the relevance slice of TriviaQA and manually checking the fraction of cases where the context does not entail the QA pair." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.281, + 0.476, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.509, + 0.49, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Ablation studies on data mixture ratios showing the importance of KAFT augmentations. We add Unified QA (Khashabi et al., 2022) and noisy finetuning baselines for comparison." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.582, + 0.421, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelPretrainedKAFT
T5 XL6.1%7.2%
T5 XXL6.6%6.8%
PaLM 8B3.3%4.1%
PaLM 62B1.4%1.3%
PaLM 540B0.6%0.7%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.707, + 0.49, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: The match rate between models' closed book answers and counterfactual answers, among all TriviaQA training set questions with counterfactual augmentations. KAFT shows little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.806, + 0.486, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "be replaced by simply adding more supervised data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KAFT models memorize few counterfactual. One potential risk of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.274, + 0.885, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. We find very little memorization: e.g., the KAFT-PALM 540B model only memorized \\(0.1\\%\\) more counterfactuals compared to the pretrained PALM model after KAFT finetuning. Results for other models are similar (cf. Table. 6). The model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, rather than memorizing the counterfactual answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.452, + 0.885, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context noise reduces controllability. By context noise we refer to the subset of training data where the model is required to produce an answer that is not implied by the provided context, or required to ignore the context while it actually imply the answer. On the flip side, we find that it is possible to achieve good controllability without explicit counterfactual augmentations if we can reduce context noise in the training data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.598, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table. 5 shows how different amounts of context noise impact the model's controllability. In particular, because TriviaQA contexts are produced by a retrieval system, it is not guaranteed that a context logically implies the answer. This is even true when the context contains exact matches of the answer. On the other hand, TReX, SQuAD and QASC contains much less context noise given our KAFT construction methods Sec. A.1. Due to this intrinsic noise, including TriviaQA in KAFT caused a negative impact on controllability, especially when there are no explicit counterfactual augmentations. The first row shows noisy finetuning, which contains the most noise. The last row shows that KAFT with TriviaQA data removed. Even though this model is not finetuned on TriviaQA, it has the best controllability. The second row uses a simpler and more noisy filter than KAFT by considering a context to be relevant if it contains the answer." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1781" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.248, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.493, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we analyzed the interaction between LLMs' parametric knowledge (stored in its model parameters) and knowledge contained in informational contexts provided as a part of the input sequence. We find that models are prone to ignoring the context, especially when the context is in conflict with the parametric knowledge. In addition, the model's output can be swayed by irrelevant context even when there is no logical link between such context and the model's task at hand. We quantitatively characterize these behaviours as controllability and robustness of LLMs when one attempts to control their working memory with noisy context. We proposed a new finetuning method, KAFT, that utilizes data augmentations to substantially boost the controllability and robustness of an LLM without significantly affecting its performance on standard QA tasks. With KAFT, we can build LLMs with a clear order of priority when utilizing information from difference sources, including its own parametric knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.462, + 0.251, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.488, + 0.292, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Multiple sources" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.51, + 0.49, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we trained a model that can utilize two sources of information with predefined priority order, with one of them being the model's own parametric knowledge. While this is the first step towards LLM's information utilization with clear, predefined priorities, we acknowledge that real world applications could be more nuanced. For example, KAFT may need to be expanded to treat multiple sources of information with different trustworthiness which may translate to the following desired priority order:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.701, + 0.488, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\text {r e l e v a n t} 1 > \\text {r e l e v a n t} 2 (5) \\\\ > \\text {m o d e l} > \\text {m o d e l} ^ {\\prime} \\text {p a r a m e t r i c k n o w l d e g l e} (6) \\\\ > \\text {r e l e v a n t} 3 (7) \\\\ > \\text {a l l i r r e l e v a n t c o m p e s t} (8) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.79, + 0.49, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This orders of priority determines the handling of conflicts. In addition, any irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.85, + 0.402, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Multitask / in-context learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KAFT currently only explores QA tasks. We acknowledge that the applications of LLMs go far beyond a single style of tasks. We have not yet" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "achieved controlled utilization of information in a task agnostic way. Ideally, the model should learn to prioritize retrieved relevant information in any task that LLMs are capable of, including in-context few-shot or zero-shot scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.178, + 0.881, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.3 Dynamically enforce \"learning to ignore\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.2, + 0.885, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, it was necessary to build a different KAFT dataset for each model. Because in Eq. 4, whenever the context is irrelevant, the model fits on to the pretrained model's answers which depends on the model. This presents additional workload when applying KAFT to new models. In future, it's worthwhile to explore a dynamic methods that generates closed booked answers during training. At each training step involving irrelevant context, we could run the forward pass twice, one with the provided context and another without. Then we can compute a new loss:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.407, + 0.882, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} r = 1: \\operatorname {L o s s} = \\operatorname {C E} \\left(M ^ {\\prime} (c + q), \\text {l a b e l}\\right) (9) \\\\ r = 0: \\operatorname {L o s s} = \\operatorname {C E} (M ^ {\\prime} (c + q), \\\\ \\operatorname {s t o p} _ {\\text {g r a d i e n t}} \\left(M ^ {\\prime} (q)\\right) (10) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.477, + 0.885, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(+\\) denotes string concatenation. This is different from Eq. 4 as it fits on to the closed book answers of the current version of the finetuned model, rather than that of the pretrained model. It's not yet clear whether this would achieve better robustness. It's also more expensive because two forward passes are necessary for each training example. However it might be justified by the improved simplicity in directly applying KAFT with minimal prepossessing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.639, + 0.884, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This approach is somewhat similar to classifier free guidance (Ho and Salimans, 2022), which has been successfully applied to image generation models. One added benefit of classifier free guidance is the ability to tune the strength of context conditioning after the model is trained, which is another interesting direction to explore here." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.764, + 0.881, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Ethics statement: Broader impacts and potential risks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we study approaches to finetune LLMs to make them more grounded and faithful to provided contexts. If our method is applied broadly, it has the potential to correct the unwanted or biased behavior of LLMs with a carefully curated set of natural language instructions without expensive retraining. This provides one feasible avenue" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1782" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "towards improving language models to correct a potential bias that is embedded in the pretraining corpus. At the same time, we acknowledge that our method does not completely address such issues on its own, because 1) instances where the model's working memory is not controllable by the context even after KAFT is applied may remain; 2) the finetuning dataset used in KAFT may inadvertently introduce or strengthen certain biases. For example, we acknowledge that all KAFT datasets used in this study are English datasets, and so it is a valuable future work direction to extend KAFT to be more representative of all languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.296, + 0.492, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we acknowledge that the use of LLMs can be expensive in terms of energy usage. We utilize existing pretrained LLMs such as T5 and PaLM. KAFT's energy usage is small compared to the pretraining process, but it still leaves a significant energy footprint. In particular, the most expensive training, KAFT-PaLM 540B, takes 12190 TPU v4 hours. It is our hope that methods such as KAFT will provide a way for reducing the need for frequently retraining LLMs, and thus could lead to a more environmentally friendly experimentation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.488, + 0.287, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.516, + 0.49, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to thank Slav Petrov for his insightful comments on an early draft of the paper that significantly helped improve the presentation of our work. We would also like to thank the reviewers and meta-reviewer for their thoughtful feedback on our submission." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.643, + 0.216, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.668, + 0.49, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F. Gregory Ashby, Shawn W. Ell, Vivian V. Valentin, and Michael B. Casale. 2005. FROST: A Distributed Neurocomputational Model of Working Memory Maintenance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(11):1728-1743." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.749, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in NeurIPS, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.668, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.396, + 0.886, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2021. Editing factual knowledge in language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6491-6506, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.485, + 0.886, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.548, + 0.886, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL, pages 4171-4186." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.624, + 0.886, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bhuwan Dhingra, Jeremy R Cole, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Daniel Gillick, Jacob Eisenstein, and William W Cohen. 2022. Time-aware language models as temporal knowledge bases. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:257-273." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.713, + 0.886, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hady Elsahar, Pavlos Vougiouklis, Arslen Remaci, Christophe Gravier, Jonathon Hare, Frederique Laforest, and Elena Simperl. 2018. T-REx: A large scale alignment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.828, + 0.886, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keisuke Fukuda and Geoffrey F. Woodman. 2017. Visual working memory buffers information retrieved from visual long-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114/20." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.891, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "J M Fuster. 1973. Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal corre" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1783" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lates of transient memory. Journal of Neurophysiology, 36(1):61-78. PMID: 4196203." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.125, + 0.489, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl H. Pribram George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt, New York." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.177, + 0.489, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2021. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5484-5495, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.281, + 0.489, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.333, + 0.486, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-free diffusion guidance." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.372, + 0.488, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiting Hu and Li Erran Li. 2022. A causal lens for controllable text generation. CoRR, abs/2201.09119." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.424, + 0.489, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joel Jang, Seonghyeon Ye, Sohee Yang, Joongbo Shin, Janghoon Han, Gyeonghun KIM, Stanley Jungkyu Choi, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. Towards continual knowledge learning of language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.501, + 0.489, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.619, + 0.489, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Kenton Lee, Yi Luan, and Kristina Toutanova. 2020. Contextualized representations using textual encyclopedic knowledge. CoRR, abs/2004.12006." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.684, + 0.489, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nora Kassner and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Negated and misprimed probes for pretrained language models: Birds can talk, but cannot fly. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7811-7818, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.774, + 0.489, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Khashabi, Yeganeh Kordi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Unifiedqa-v2: Stronger generalization via broader cross-format training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Khashabi, Sewon Min, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. UNIFIEDQA: Crossing format boundaries with a single QA system. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1896-1907, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tushar Khot, Peter Clark, Michal Guerquin, Peter Alexander Jansen, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2020. Qasc: A dataset for question answering via sentence composition. ArXiv, abs/1910.11473." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.883, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angeliki Lazaridou, Adhi Kuncoro, Elena Gribovskaya, Devang Agrawal, Adam Liska, Tayfun Terzi, Mai Gimenez, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Tomas Kocisky, Sebastian Ruder, Dani Yogatama, Kris Cao, Susannah Young, and Phil Blunsom. 2021. Mind the gap: Assessing temporal generalization in neural language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 29348-29363. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.278, + 0.883, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.511, + 0.883, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shayne Longpre, Kartik Perisetla, Anthony Chen, Nikhil Ramesh, Chris DuBois, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Entity-based knowledge conflicts in question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7052-7063, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.627, + 0.883, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Locating and editing factual knowledge in gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05262." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.69, + 0.883, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. 2022b. Mass-editing memory in a transformer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.74, + 0.883, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Fast model editing at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.804, + 0.883, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ella Neeman, Roee Aharoni, Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2022. to appear." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.854, + 0.883, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Katsuhiko Ogata. 1996. Modern Control Engineering (3rd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marwan Omar, Soohyeon Choi, DaeHun Nyang, and David Mohaisen. 2022. Robust natural language" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1784" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "processing: Recent advances, challenges, and future directions. CoRR, abs/2201.00768." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.121, + 0.487, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yasumasa Onoe, Michael JQ Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2022. Entity cloze by date: What lms know about unseen entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02832." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.181, + 0.487, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. 2021. Contraqa: Question answering under contradicting contexts. CoRR, abs/2110.07803." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.242, + 0.487, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Aleksandra Pik-tus, Tim Rocktäschel, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H. Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. How context affects language models' factual predictions. CoRR, abs/2005.04611." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.315, + 0.487, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Tim Roktaschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.441, + 0.487, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sottiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew Johnson, Blake Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Ed Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.882, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.224, + 0.882, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.286, + 0.882, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, Elton Zhang, Rewon Child, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, Julie Bernauer, Xia Song, Mohammad Shoeybi, Yuxiong He, Michael Houston, Saurabh Tiwary, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2022. Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing nlg 530b, a large-scale generative language model." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.427, + 0.882, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.489, + 0.882, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanqing Zhang, Haolin Song, Shaoyu Li, Ming Zhou, and Dawei Song. 2022. A survey of controllable text generation using transformer-based pre-trained language models. CoRR, abs/2201.05337." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.552, + 0.882, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chen Zhu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Manzil Zaheer, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Daliang Li, Felix Yu, and Sanjiv Kumar. 2020. Modifying memories in transformer models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00363." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.617, + 0.632, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.643, + 0.869, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Details on relevant context construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.662, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQuAD 2.0 has human labels for this particular aspect. But most datasets do not. For TReX, the question is cloze style where we mask a certain entity within the triples statement. We build a relevant context by concatenating the original statements with a number of sampled irrelevant statements, after randomly shuffling their order. This ensures the relevance of the context while keeping it challenging. The training set of QASC provides 2 gold statements that implies the answer via a two hop reasoning. We are using the 2-stage retrieved collection of statements similar to (Khashabi et al., 2020). We find that the gold statements, or semantically equivalent ones, often exist in the retrieved results. To improve relevance we will randomly add one of the two golden statements and mix it in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1785" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the retrieved context to build a relevant context for the KAFT training set. We manually checked on a random small subset that this ensures a relevance ratio around \\(90\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.49, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TriviaQA is especially challenging because there is no human labeled gold context, while all existing contexts are obtained by a retrieval system. We filter the context by whether they contain the answer. This turned out to be insufficient and leaves a large fraction of irrelevant contexts that do not logically entail the answer. We apply additional filters based on the unigram overlaps of the context with the question, as well as based on the output of a logically entailment model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.326, + 0.293, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Training Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.348, + 0.49, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use a learning rate of 0.0002 on all models. The batch size is 32 for all PaLM models and 16 for T5 models. For T5 XL we pick the checkpoint at 100000 finetune steps and for T5 XXL models we pick the checkpoint at 90000 steps. For PaLM 8B and 62B, we pick the checkpoint at 40000 finetuning steps. For PaLM 540B we pick the checkpoint at 15000 steps. These steps are generally determined by avoiding overfitting. However for larger models we are also constrained by compute resources." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.539, + 0.392, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Knowledge Probing Prompts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.562, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we provide details on how the knowledge probing prompts in Table 7-9 are constructed. In particular, our goal is to make the model only answer questions where it knows the answer. To do this, we construct prompts that contains two types of QA pairs:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.673, + 0.487, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Regular QA pairs if the model can answer the specific question correctly in multiple few-shot in-context settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.728, + 0.486, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. QA pairs where the answer is \"I don't know\" for T5 models or \"?\" for PaLM models, if the model cannot answer the question correctly in most few-shot in-context settings." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.673, + 0.487, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With such specially designed prompts, we encourage the model to abstain if it does not know the answer. The counterfactual context used in the controllability benchmark is constructed using the same method. However we ensure no entities overlaps exist between the prompts that generates the training data vs the test data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.773, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Counterfactual Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.107, + 0.884, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. This is done in 3 steps:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.183, + 0.882, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We apply a diverse set of few-shot prompts similar to Table 10 to condition a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate plausible counterfactual answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.255, + 0.882, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. We remove examples if the generation is unsuccessful, when it's either too long or have a large overlap with the original answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.31, + 0.882, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. We replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer in the original context to build the counterfactual context." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.183, + 0.882, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.37, + 0.884, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With this approach, we build a new QA data set where the answer implied by the context is likely to be in conflict with the model's existing knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.446, + 0.806, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Evaluations for Counterfactual memorization and relevance classification" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.5, + 0.884, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One potential danger of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. The results in Table 6 show that KAFT has little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers. Instead the model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, as demonstrated in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.677, + 0.884, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As illustrated in Table 1 and described in Table 3, we require the model to generate its judgements on whether the provided context is relevant. As a sanity check, we evaluated this part of the output on 1000 class-balanced SQuAD2 validation questions, the relevance prediction from KAFT-T5-XXL has \\(84\\%\\) precision and \\(98\\%\\) recall." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.802, + 0.677, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 Postprocessing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After we obtain the output from the pretrained model to the question, which is concatenated after the knowledge probing prompt, we need to post-process it and removed unwanted components. We do two types of post-processing on the pretrained predictions:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1786" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.198, + 0.877, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelStandard QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: what was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future? A: I don't know.Q: What is the term for a hyperactive immune system that attacks normal tissues? A: autoimmunity.Q: What complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability? A: I don't know.Q: Which nation contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: The symbol for mercuric oxide is? A: HgO.Q: What religion did the Yuan discourage, to support Buddhism? A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: What King and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group? A: Henry IV.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: Who was the US Secretary of State in 2001? A: Colin Bowell.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.Q: When did the European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli? A: 2012.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: When did Costa v ENEL take place? A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: New York Bay.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: When was the Parental Leave directive created? A: 1996.Q: How many megaregions are there in the United States? A: 11.Q: Where is D'Olier Street? A: Dublin.Q: What is the speed limit set to reduce consumption? A: 55 mph.Q: What channel replaced Sky Travel? A: Sky Three.Q: Who founded McKinsey & Company? A: James O. McKinsey.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.78, + 0.883, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Knowledge probing prompts for standard QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in SQuAD 2.0 and TriviaQA." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1787" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.088, + 0.797, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelCloze Style QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\n__formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?.\nSupply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.\n__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.\n__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts.\n__ was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future. A: ?\n__ is defined as a hyperactive immune system attacking normal tissues? A: autoimmunity.\n__ complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability. A: ?\n__ contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nSupply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.\n__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.\n__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts.\nThe French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism.\nThe symbol for mercuric oxide is _. A: HgO.\nThe Yuan discouraged _ to support Buddhism. A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nKing _ and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group. A: Henry IV.\nThe principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution. A: Charles Darwin.\n__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\n__ was the US Secretary of State in 2001. A: Colin Bowell.\nThe principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.\n__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels. A: Siegfried.\nThe European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli in year_. A: 2012.\nThe French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism.\nCosta v ENEL happend in year_. A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: New York Bay.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nThe Parental Leave directive created in year_. A: 1996.\nThere are __ megaregions in the United States. A: 11.\nD'Olier Street is located in_. A: Dublin.\nThe speed limit was set to _ to reduce consumption. A: 55 mph.\n__ channel replaced Sky Travel. A: Sky Three.\n__ founded McKinsey & Company. A: James O. McKinsey.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.671, + 0.884, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.71, + 0.769, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMultiple Choice QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
PaLM 62BQuestion: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? (A) The great lakes (B) Amazon river (C) The red sea (D) the Atlantic Ocean (E) San Francisco bay (F) The north sea (G) Indian Ocean (H) Lake Mississippi -Answer: (D) the Atlantic Ocean. \nQuestion: Who was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? (A) Donald Trump (B) Miho Nonaka (C) Andrew Yang (D) a France citizen (E) a political outsider (F) Shinzo Abe (G) woman (H) Zoe. -Answer: (F) Shinzo Abe. Question: what increases moisture? (A) density (B) the sun (C) wind (D) droughts (E) Honey (F) 17 (G) rain (H) meat -Answer: (G) rain. \nQuestion: What can be found inside a cell? (A) soil (B) dogs (C) ovum (D) starfish (E) Most plants (F) RNA (G) washer (H) abundant -Answer: (F) RNA. \nQuestion: What kind of coloring do chromoplasts make? (A) fat (B) move (C) RNA (D) grow (E) red (F) skin (G) eyes (H) DNA -Answer: (E) red.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.89, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1788" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.082, + 0.84, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
QuestionIn which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance?
Original answerHungary
Counterfactual answerRussia
Original contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Hungary.
Counterfactual contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Russia.
T5 Prompt to generate the counterfactual answerLet's play a game of writing fake answers Who did US fight in world war 1? Real answer: Germany. Fake answer: Somalia. Who is the CEO of Amazon? Real Answer: Jeff Bezos. Fake Answer: Richard D. Fairbank. ...7 more examples ... In which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance? Real answer: Hungary. Fake answer: <extra_id_0>.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.329, + 0.884, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: An example from the counterfactual split of the KAFT training set. We take an original question, answer, and context triple. We then use a few examples to prompt a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a plausible counterfactual answer. Finally, we replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer to build the counterfactual context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.401, + 0.49, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Truncation: We truncate the model's output on special tokens such as \\( < \\) extra_id_1 >, punctuation, line change symbols and question/context initialization symbols such as \"Q:\", \"Question:\", \" CONTEXT:\", These symbols are a frequent in the pretrained model's responds to our QA style knowledge probe prompts and indicate that the model is ready to move on to the next question that is unrelated to the answer of the current question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.569, + 0.49, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Abstain: We normalize all abstain symbols. Whenever the model indicate abstaining using either \"I don't know\", \"unsure\" or \"?\" in the output as responses to our prompt, we record \"unsure\" as its answer when constructing the label in the irrelevant slices of KAFT." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.675, + 0.353, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.7 Dataset and task details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.696, + 0.49, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KAFT mixes together a number of datasets, each with multiple augmentation slices. During training, data from these difference sources are sampled in a round-robin style according to predefined mixture weights. We list these weights as well as the corresponding dataset stats as in Table 11. The sampling ratio from each slice is computed using a product of the normalized dataset level rate and the normalized slice level rate as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.196, + 0.847, + 0.488, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nR (d, s) = \\frac {r _ {d}}{\\sum_ {d ^ {\\prime}} r _ {d ^ {\\prime}}} \\frac {r _ {d s}}{\\sum_ {s ^ {\\prime}} r _ {d s ^ {\\prime}}} \\tag {11}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(d, d'\\) denote different datasets and \\(s, s'\\) denote difference slices within each dataset. For ex" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.402, + 0.883, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ample, the sampling ratio from the QASC relevant slice is given by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.447, + 0.882, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} R (Q A S C, r e l e v a n t) \\\\ = \\frac {0 . 3}{1 . 3 + 0 . 3 + 0 . 1 + 0 . 2} \\frac {0 . 5}{0 . 5 + 0 . 2 5 + 0 . 0 2} \\\\ = 0. 0 8 3 1 \\tag {12} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.532, + 0.885, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The KAFT-TriviaQA training set contains 45593 relevant examples and 72697 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-QASC training set contains 8134 relevant examples and the same number of irrelevant examples. The KAFT-SQuAD2 dataset contains 78125 relevant examples and 117287 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-TReX training set contains 75365 relevant examples and 47503 irrelevant examples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.689, + 0.813, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.8 Licensing and scientific artifacts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.71, + 0.884, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we used the following scientific artifacts: TriviaQA is licensed under Apache License 2.0. The SQuAD 2.0 dataset is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. T-REx is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. QASC is under CC BY license. T5 models are under Apache License 2.0. Unified QA models are under Apache License 2.0. The PaLM models are proprietary. All these artifacts are properly cited when we mention them the first time. Our use for these artifacts are consistent with their licenses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We create the following scientific artifacts and we will partly release them after this paper is pub" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1789" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.257, + 0.739, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
datasetdataset weightsliceslice weight
SQuAD 2.01.3relevant0.8
counterfactual0.1
original irrelevant abstain0.1
original irrelevant other0.1
empty correct0.33
empty abstain0.02
empty other0.05
sampled irrelevant correct0.33
sampled irrelevant abstain0.02
sampled irrelevant other0.03
QASC0.3relevant0.5
irrelevant correct0.25
irrelevant other0.02
TReX0.1relevant0.4
counterfactual0.4
2-hop relevant6
irrelevant correct0.15
irrelevant abstain0.03
irrelevant other0.03
TriviaQA0.2relevant0.8
counterfactual0.15
irrelevant/empty correct0.5
irrelevant/empty other0.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.65, + 0.885, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Task mixture weights. During finetuning, training data from each split is computed in a round robin fashion according to these weights. The sampling rate from each slice is computed with these weights using in Eq. 12. Here \"relevant\", \"irrelevant\", \"empty\" indicates the relevance (or absence) of the context relative to the question, and \"counterfactual\" indicates counterfactual context constructed using answer replacement. The additional specification for irrelevant/empty slices, \"correct\", \"abstain\", and \"other\" indicate the pretrained model's answers' type and quality relative to the ground truth. For TReX, we have a special slice called \"2-hop relevant\". These are relevant contexts contracted using 2-hop reasoning over the triplet structure of TReX." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1790" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lished: The KAFT finetuning method will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-T5 models will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-PaLM models will be proprietary." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1791" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 6" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.169, + 0.553, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? section 7" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.213, + 0.696, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract and section 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.256, + 0.669, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.696, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.3, + 0.489, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.322, + 0.221, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 1-5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.347, + 0.53, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 1-5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.39, + 0.779, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A.8" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.433, + 0.881, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix A.8" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.525, + 0.881, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We use well established public datasets that are constructed based on publicly available information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.599, + 0.881, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sec 1-5, Appendix A.8" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.658, + 0.881, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.347, + 0.881, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.787, + 0.193, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sec 3-4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.813, + 0.881, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Sec 1-4, Sec 7, Appendix A" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1792" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.88, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4, Appendix A" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.88, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Jax" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.88, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.476, + 0.88, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1793" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_origin.pdf b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e6798f60e8b8975b014187ac571b86e503013ab --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/df593dd7-917d-44ac-ab6c-8a0670ece26b_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:784e24e70ccbe02d25c68c4dfece4e0be6a6cccd68c998da38e698764d9737c0 +size 341439 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/full.md b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70eef8b5d1dc93f0288a195d736cf62bebe974d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,486 @@ +# Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory + +Daliang Li\*, Ankit Singh Rawat\*, Manzil Zaheer\*, Xin Wang\*, Michal Lukasik\*, Andreas Veit\*, Felix Yu\*, Sanjiv Kumar\* + +Google Research New York $\hat{\mathbb{O}}$ Google DeepMind New York {daliangli, ankitsrawat, manzilzaheer} @google.com {wanxin, mlukasik, aveit, felixyu, sanjivk} @google.com + +# Abstract + +Large language models (LLMs) have led to a series of breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP), partly owing to the massive amounts of world knowledge they memorize during pretraining. While many downstream applications provide the model with an informational context to aid its underlying task, how the model's world knowledge interacts with the factual information presented in the context remains under explored. As a desirable behavior, an LLM should give precedence to the context whenever it contains task-relevant information that conflicts with the model's memorized knowledge. This enables model predictions to be grounded in the context, which then facilitates updating specific model predictions without frequently retraining the model. By contrast, when the context is irrelevant to the task, the model should ignore it and fall back on its internal knowledge. In this paper, we undertake a first joint study of the aforementioned two properties, namely controllability and robustness, in the context of LLMs. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art T5 and PaLM models (both pretrained and finetuned) could exhibit low controllability and robustness that does not improve with increasing the model size. As a solution, we propose a simple yet effective method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to strengthen both controllability and robustness by injecting counterfactual and irrelevant contexts to standard supervised datasets. Our comprehensive evaluation showcases the utility of KAFT across model architectures and sizes. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (LLMs) pretrained on large scale datasets have shown promising results across natural language tasks (Vaswani et al., 2017; Devlin et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020a; Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022). However, as models scale ever larger, + +they become more expensive to train, making it unrealistic to frequently update model parameters. On the other hand, many real world applications often necessitate adjusting model behavior. This dilemma is especially sharp in the case of factual (world) knowledge that plays important role in realizing impressive performance of LLMs. It is well known that LLMs memorize large amounts of factual knowledge in their parameters (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020; Geva et al., 2021), which could potentially be out-dated or incorrect. Even for moderate-size models, it is prohibitively expensive to retrain every time an update happens or a mistake is uncovered. Even if resources are ample, it is difficult to ensure that the modification of model parameters do not affect unrelated skills or knowledge. + +In human cognition, working memory (George A. Miller, 1960) provides the biological brain with the ability to hold information temporarily to perform tasks such as conversation, reasoning, and mathematics in a way that is adaptive to the ever-changing environment. As shown both experimentally and theoretically (Fuster, 1973; Ashby et al., 2005), working memory is stored in sustained activations of neurons, as opposed to the long term memory which is stored in weights. Working memory is also the immediate information buffer that is accessed while performing conscious tasks. In particular, it is where the fusion of perceptual inputs and long term memory happens (Fukuda and Woodman, 2017). This suggests that a potential method to solve LLMs' pointwise knowledge update and correction problem is to control the working memory stored in activations, rather than editing the long term memory stored in the model weights. + +As demonstrated by their powerful in-context few shot learning abilities (Brown et al., 2020), LLM could utilize different activation patterns resulting from different contexts during inference to solve a diverse set of tasks without any changes in + +
ControllabilityRobustness
QuestionDave Gilmour and Roger Waters were in which rock group?How has British art survived in Normandy?
ContextGeorge Roger Waters (born 6 September 1943) is an English singer, ... Later that year, he re-united with The Rolling Stones bandmates Mason, Wright and David Gilmour...In Britain, Norman art primarily survives as stonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts...
KAFT (ours)The Rolling Stones (from context).In museums (irrelevant context).
Noisy FTPink Floydstonework or metalwork
UQA V2 11BPink Floydstonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts
PretrainedPink FloydAs stonework and metalwork, such as capi-tals and baptismal fonts
+ +Table 1: Examples of model outputs demonstrating that, in contrast with baselines, a model obtained by KAFT is characterized by both improved controllability by a context that contradicts its parametric knowledge, and improved robustness against an irrelevant context, compared to baseline methods. Here, Pretrained refers to a T5 XXL model (Raffel et al., 2020b), which is also the underlying model for KAFT and Noisy Finetuning (FT). UQA V2 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) is based on the T5 11B model. + +the weights. It is natural to expect that the same would be true with factual knowledge. In particular, one could prepare a large list of natural language statements covering desired knowledge updates and corrections. At inference time, one can provide the relevant statements as context along with the input and hope that the model would perform the task based on the new knowledge presented in this context. Thus, if the model's working memory is indeed controllable by context, then a single model with static long term memory can produce different results based on a varying set of facts available in different contexts. However, we demonstrate that this approach may fall short for existing LLMs as they have great tendencies to ignore the context and stick to their own parametric knowledge – the world knowledge stored in its model parameters. This raises a natural question: + +Is it possible to design a mechanism to ensure that the context can reliably influence the model's working memory? + +Note that any such mechanism has to take into account the possibility of encountering noisy contexts. For example, any retrieval system that selects the task-relevant context from a large collection of contexts will be imperfect and occasionally provide irrelevant context. In such cases, it's desirable that the model prediction does not get swayed by an irrelevant context. Interestingly, we show that the standard pretraining and finetuning methods do not ensure this behavior either. In fact, we demonstrate + +that it's the noise encountered during the training that often leads to the model ignoring the context. + +In this work, we provide an affirmative answer to the aforementioned question and propose a novel approach – knowledge-aware finetuning (KAFT) – to make an LLM's working memory controllable via relevant context while being robust against irrelevant context. Towards this, we aim to ensure that the model utilizes different types of information at its disposal in the following order: + +# relevant context + +$>$ model's parametric knowledge (1) +$>$ irrelevant context, (2) + +where $a > b$ indicates that $a$ is prioritized over $b$ . Thus, if the model decides that the context is relevant, it should ground its output in the context, ensuring the controllability of its working memory by the context. This is crucial when the context is in conflict with the model's parametric knowledge. On the other hand, when the context is irrelevant, the model should instead stick to its parametric knowledge; thus ensuring robustness of its working memory against noise. + +Our contributions. We develop first LLMs that utilize different knowledge sources with a predefined order of priorities. Along the way, we develop a systematic understanding of the working memories of LLMs and identify their shortcomings. Our key contributions are summarized below. + +
RobustnessControllability
Standard (noisy) finetuning✗✗
Counterfactual finetuning +(Longpre et al., 2021)✗✓
KAFT (our work)✓✓
+ +Table 2: Summary of our contributions. + +1. We undertake a systematic joint study of both controllability and robustness of the working memory of LLMs. Focusing on question answering (QA) tasks, we define the context-question relevance based on whether the context entails an answer to the question. We create a novel benchmark to measure the controllability by including contexts that imply an answer which contradicts the model's pretrained knowledge.1 Similarly, we benchmark robustness against irrelevant contexts. We conduct an extensive evaluation of LLMs with different sizes across multiple architectures (encoder-decoder and decoder-only) from T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) family. We make the following key observations: + +(a) LLMs could exhibit low controllability. Our experiments consistently show that both pretrained and QA finetuned LLMs tend to ignore a context when it contradicts with model's world knowledge. We show that this problem persists and may intensify as the model becomes larger. We further show that the noise in the (QA) finetuning set plays an important role in emergence of this behavior (cf. Sec. 4.2). +(b) LLMs may not be robust against context noise. We demonstrate that both pretrained and QA finetuned models are strongly interfered by irrelevant contexts, especially the ones that are on the same general topic as the underlying question (cf. Sec. 4.3). + +2. We propose a novel method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to directly enhance both controllability (Eq. 1) and robustness (Eq. 2) of an LLM. KAFT enhances the controllability by creating counterfactual data augmentations where the answer entity in the context is swapped to a different but plausible entity, in conflict with the ground truth (and potentially the model's world knowledge). As for enhancing robustness, KAFT requires that the model should predict its pretrained closed-book answer rather than the ground truth answer whenever the context is irrelevant. + +3. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we show that KAFT-based models successfully demonstrate the coexistence of controllability and robustness of model's working memory (see Table 1 for an illustration). + +# 2 Related Works + +World knowledge in language models. Recent works established that LLMs memorize factual information present in the pretraining corpus. E.g., Petroni et al. (2019) utilize language model analysis (LAMA) probing to show that BERT models (Devlin et al., 2018) could act as knowledge bases. Roberts et al. (2020) reported similar findings for T5 models. It is therefore common practice to employ LLMs in tasks like closed book QA (Chowdhery et al., 2022). + +Knowledge update in language models. Given that factual knowledge is ever-evolving, outdated memory of LLMs may lead to incorrect predictions (Lazaridou et al., 2021; Onoe et al., 2022). Furthermore, during deployment, one may unearth mistakes that need correction. Frequent retraining from scratch with an updated and corrected corpus would be prohibitively expensive. Ideas around finetuning (Zhu et al., 2020) and continued learning (Jang et al., 2022) train the model with less but still significant resources. Multiple recent efforts have studied how these models store the factual knowledge (Geva et al., 2021) and methods to update model parameters given new knowledge (De Cao et al., 2021; Dhingra et al., 2022; Mitchell et al., 2022; Meng et al., 2022a,b). These strategies change weights in response to single updates, risking inadvertently affecting unrelated skills or knowledge and creating burden to potentially store multiple versions of LLMs. We focus on updating the model behavior by providing a suitable context and ensuring that the model's working memory is controllable by such contexts. + +Contextual and parametric knowledge. Guu et al. (2020); Joshi et al. (2020); Petroni et al. (2020) utilized retrieved context to assist language models in tasks such as QA. At the same time, LLMs memorize large amounts of knowledge in their parameters. Despite this dichotomy, only a few studies have previously addressed the relation between these two very different knowledge sources. Longpre et al. (2021) find that larger models have a greater tendency to ignore context in + +favor of their own parametric knowledge, and that the noise in the context in the finetuning set plays a big role in causing this behavior. We incorporate the algorithms proposed by Longpre et al. (2021) for mitigating this problem as baselines in Sec. 4.4 (the Relevant Only Finetuning approaches), where we find such baselines lack robustness against irrelevant contexts (Fig. 1, 2). Kassner and Schütze (2020) showed that language models tend to be easily misled by certain types of irrelevant contexts. We observe similar phenomena in QA and show that our proposed KAFT leads to more robust models against irrelevant contexts. Finally, Pan et al. (2021) considers a scenario where some context sources may be less trustworthy than the model's parametric knowledge. This scenario can be captured by an extension of our framework Eq.(1-2). For example, given three sources, one could enforce the following precedence order: source1 > source2 > model's own knowledge > source3 > irrelevant contexts. + +Notions of controllability and robustness. In control theory, controllability (Ogata, 1996) refers to the ability of using external inputs to manipulate system to reach all possible states. In the spirit of this definition, this paper measures the controllability of an LM's working memory by external contexts. In the framework of controlled text generation (Zhang et al., 2022; Hu and Li, 2022), the notion of controllability explored here is a special type of fine-grained semantic control of the model's behavior with the content of the context. + +Notions of robustness. (Liang et al., 2022; Omar et al., 2022) survey many notions of robustness of language models around the notion of the invariance of model's behaviors when the input is perturbed (for example, expressing similar semantic meanings in different ways). Our robustness benchmark is an extreme and input-dependent version under this framework. In our evaluations, the input contains two parts: the context and the question. In this work, a robust model's response is invariant to large perturbations in the semantic content of the context, as long as these changes are not relevant to the question. + +During the preparation of this manuscript, we were made aware of a parallel and independent investigation by Neeman et al. (2022) that shares some important aspects of our work. + +
Context typeTarget sequence
relevant context${ground truth answer} +(from context)
irrelevant context${pretrained model's answer} +(irrelevant context)
empty context${pretrained model's answer} +(empty context)
counterfactual context${counterfactual answer} +是从 context)
+ +Table 3: The output formats of the KAFT model. + +# 3 Methods + +For concreteness, consider a reading comprehension QA task where the model takes question $q$ together with a context $c$ as its input. The question has an answer label $a$ . We also need a relevance label $r$ denoting whether $c$ entails $a$ . + +Starting with a pretrained LM $M$ , we would like to build a model $M^{\prime}$ such that when the context $c$ is relevant, its answer is always grounded in $c$ , when $c$ is irrelevant, it sticks to the pretrained model's answer. In equations: + +$$ +r = 1: \quad M ^ {\prime} (c + q) = a \tag {3} +$$ + +$$ +r = 0: \quad M ^ {\prime} (c + q) = M (q) \tag {4} +$$ + +where $+$ denotes string concatenation. This establishes the priority order of knowledge sources as in Eq. (1 & 2): if there is a conflict between a relevant context $c$ and $M$ 's parametric knowledge, then the output should be consistent with $c$ . In addition, irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output. Note that even though we are separating relevant vs irrelevant context here, the model does not know $r$ a priori. It has to determine $r$ based on the semantics of $c$ and $q$ . + +In the KAFT data, $r = 1$ cases include relevant or counterfactual context, where $a$ is the ground truth or counterfactual answer, respectively; $r = 0$ cases include empty or irrelevant contexts. Here the label is given by the pretrained model's answer to the same question in a few-shot closed book setting, reflecting the model's parametric knowledge. To provide more interpretability, we make the model output its classification of the context's relevance along side the answer itself. See Table 3 for details. + +# 3.1 Datasets + +We construct KAFT based on several public datasets, including SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), T-REx (Elsahar et al., 2018), QASC (Khot + +et al., 2020), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). They cover several different QA formats, including multiple choice (QASC), Cloze (TReX), extractive (SQuAD), and open domain (TriviaQA). For each dataset, we may construct different types of context and corresponding labels as summarized in Table 4. + +# 3.2 Models + +We select two families of pretrained LLMs: T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) representing the encoder-decoder architecture and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) representing the decoder only architecture. We include all three PaLM models (8B, 62B and 540B), while with T5 we restrict to the largest sizes (XL and XXL, with 3B and 11B parameters, respectively) because the smaller ones do not respond well to in-context few shot prompts, making it difficult to measure their parametric knowledge. + +# 3.3 Relevant context + +We define the relevance of a context by whether it logically entails an answer to the question, which is a strong requirement - even if a piece of context is on the same topic of the question or contain the answer label, it might still be irrelevant. In practice, this happens often among retrieved results. In Sec 4.4, we show that if the model is still required to fit on to the ground truth label when given an irrelevant context, then the model becomes more likely to ignore relevant contexts. It is therefore crucial to strive towards precise logical entailment when building relevant context. We apply several techniques to improve the semantic connection between the context and the QA pair as shown in Table. 4. More details can be found in Appendix A.1. + +# 3.4 Irrelevant Context + +An irrelevant context is any context that does not entail the answer. An easy irrelevant context is completely off topic. We obtain them with random sampling for all datasets. A hard irrelevant context is on the same topic, sometimes discussing the same entities involved in the QA pair but does not logically entail the answer. SQuAD 2.0 already contains human labels on whether the answer can be derived from the context, thus providing hard irrelevant contexts. TriviaQA provides somewhat extensive paraphrases for each answer. We filter the retrieved contexts to find ones that do not contain any answer paraphrase, and use them as hard irrelevant context. + +# 3.5 Probing pretrained knowledge + +We first use the pretrained model to generate $M(q)$ in Eq. 4, which are then used to assemble the KAFT finetuning dataset according to Eq. 4. We use hand-engineered few-shot knowledge probing prompts that condition the model to answer a question according to its world knowledge acquired during pretraining. In Appendix A.3, we provide more details on the construction of these prompts. + +# 3.6 Counterfactuals + +To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. Given a triple of question, answer, and relevant context, we use a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a triple of question, counterfactual answer, and counterfactual context with prompt engineering. We apply several filtering and postprocessing techniques to ensure the quality. Details are given in Appendix A.4. + +# 3.7 Metrics + +In this section, we define metrics that measures controllability and robustness. All results are from single runs. + +Controllability. To measure controllability, we supply the model with a counterfactual context and examine whether it can output the corresponding counterfactual answer. For a fair comparison, we select questions which all five pretrained models can answer correctly in a closed book few-shot setting, which are referred to as head questions. Since they are likely well represented in the pretraining set, such questions are challenging as we swap the answer to counterfactuals. Since we don't have any paraphrases of the counterfactual answer, we choose to use thresholded unigram recall to measure the performance. In particular, a model output is rated positive if the output of the model contains $>80\%$ of the answer unigrams, with stop-words removed. + +Robustness. To measure robustness, we use the human labeled "impossible" slice of SQuAD 2.0, since SQuAD 2.0 contains many examples where the context is on the same general topic of the question but does not contain the answer. We measure the rate when the model successfully avoids extracting answers from such irrelevant contexts. The avoidance is considered successful if the con + +
DatasetRelevant ContextIrrelevant contextCounterfactual context
TReLUSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statementSampledSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statement with the answer entity replaced
SQuAD 2.0From original datasetOriginal human labeled and sampledRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
QASC2-stage retrieved statements and one golden statementSampledNone
TriviaQA (wiki split)Retrieved contexts containing the answer and overlapping with the questionRetrieved contexts that do not contain the answerRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
+ +Table 4: A summary of the KAFT data construction. For relevant context, counterfactual context, and irrelevant/empty context, the corresponding answer labels are ground truth answer, counterfactual answer, and pretrained model's few shot closed book answer, respectively. All four datasets also include examples where no context is provided. + +text contains less than $50\%$ of the unigrams in the model's prediction, removing stop words. + +# 3.8 Baselines + +Pretrained. We evaluate the pretrained model's controllability and robustness in a zero shot reading comprehension QA setup. The context is concatenated with the question in input sequence. + +Noisy finetuning. In this approach, the label is the ground truth answer whether the context is relevant or not. This is a standard method implicitly used in most QA datasets.2 In this work, we construct this baseline for KAFT by first removing all counterfactual augmentations and then replace all labels with the ground truth label. + +Relevant only finetuning. The approach where only relevant context and the corresponding ground truth label are used during finetuning, which is shown to improve controllability in (Longpre et al., 2021). As a baseline for KAFT we remove all counterfactual and irrelevant augmentations and only keep the relevant slice of our finetuning data. + +UQA V2. The Unified QA 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) model, which is a general purpose QA model finetuned on a collection of 20 QA datasets. We take the largest model (11B) in the UQA V2 family as a baseline and compare with KAFT T5 XXL which is of similar size in Fig. 2. Since UQA V2 contains SQuAD 2.0 in its training set, where the label for irrelevant context is an empty string, it + +does not completely follow the noisy finetuning prescription introduced earlier. + +KAFT noCF. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations. + +KAFT noCF and noTQA. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations and no TriviaQA slice. + +We include more details on the hyper parameters of model finetuning, prompts, post processing, data filtering, and metric computations in the Appendix A.2. + +# 4 Results + +In this section we measure the controllability and robustness of KAFT with the metrics defined in Sec. 3.7 and compare with baselines in Sec. 3.8. + +# 4.1 Larger models may ignore more contexts + +Most benchmarks improve as a function of model size, including TriviaQA exact match (EM) accuracy, as shown in the first row of Fig. 1. However, we found that larger models may ignore the context more. This may happen for the pretrained model, but the behavior is especially severe for models finetuned on QA tasks using baseline approaches. We demonstrate this effect in the second row of Fig. 1. This highlights a need for designing new methods to improve the controllability of LLMs. + +# 4.2 KAFT and controllability + +One of the most striking phenomenon observable from Fig. 1 is that KAFT achieve immense improvements in controllability while maintaining + +![](images/a7fdb80f9690d5d2c3b93532ad4b0fff0ffef0e2baf26c51a1b5ffa17329030c.jpg) +Figure 1: LLMs may become less controllable as the model size increases. Interestingly, KAFT significantly boosts controllability and robustness. The first row shows the EM on the wiki split of TriviaQA when one retrieved context is supplied. The second row shows the controllability when the context is in conflict with the pretrained model's knowledge. The third rows show robustness against human labelled irrelevant contexts from SQuAD 2.0. + +performance on standard QA. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 24X better controllability compared to the noisy finetuning when the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained factual knowledge, while performing similarly on regular contexts. In addition, KAFT is the only finetuning approach that consistently achieves better controllability than the pretrained models. Most of this gain originates from the counterfactual augmentation where the model explicitly learns the priority order in Eq. 1 when a conflict does appear. However both relevant only finetuning and KAFT without counterfactual augmentations also exhibit stronger controllability compared to noisy finetuning, even when there is no explicit counterfactual augmentations in both cases. The reason is that both approaches avoid irrelevant contexts that does not imply an answer. Thus the model is less prone to ignore the context compared to noisy finetuning. + +# 4.3 KAFT and robustness + +For the pretrained model, the robustness decreased slightly from T5 XL to XXL and from PaLM 8B to 62B (see third row in Fig. 1). But the difference is small. Relevant only finetuning suffers the most loss because it does not have irrelevant contexts + +during training. Noisy finetuning only alleviates this loss slightly, still vastly underperforming the pretrained model. + +KAFT, on the other hand, significantly boosts robustness. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 6X better robustness compared to noisy finetuning and 1.6X better robustness compared to the pretrained model. Adding the counterfactual augmentation slightly reduces robustness, but the difference is comparably small. + +# 4.4 Analysis and ablation studies + +We perform ablation studies to understand the effect of different augmentations in KAFT, as well as the general effect of added context noise. + +Effect of KAFT data augmentations. In Fig. 2, we systematically reduce the sampling rate of different data augmentation slices when training KAFT-T5 XXL models. We observe that reducing or removing the counterfactual and irrelevant data augmentations severely reduces controllability and robustness, respectively. In addition, KAFT models significantly out-perform the very strong baselines of Unified QA V2 on both controllability and robustness, showing that KAFT cannot + +
MethodControllability PALM 62BControllability T5 XXLEst. Noise ratio from relevant slice of TQA
NoisyFT15%37%63%
KAFT noCF EM filter20%51%35%
KAFT noCF33%54%5%
KAFT noCF and noTQA52%69%0%
+ +![](images/a86d16566fc0f3d7c5344da9ba1f682ab0003e3d633a26a6ed9f63081b72ac80.jpg) +Figure 2: Ablation studies on data mixture ratios showing the importance of KAFT augmentations. We add Unified QA (Khashabi et al., 2022) and noisy finetuning baselines for comparison. + +Table 5: Context noise leads to model ignoring context and thus reduces controllability. We compare the controllability of models finetuned with different levels of context noise resulting from different filtering approaches on the training data. The noise ratio is estimated by sampling a small subset from the relevance slice of TriviaQA and manually checking the fraction of cases where the context does not entail the QA pair. + +
ModelPretrainedKAFT
T5 XL6.1%7.2%
T5 XXL6.6%6.8%
PaLM 8B3.3%4.1%
PaLM 62B1.4%1.3%
PaLM 540B0.6%0.7%
+ +Table 6: The match rate between models' closed book answers and counterfactual answers, among all TriviaQA training set questions with counterfactual augmentations. KAFT shows little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers. + +be replaced by simply adding more supervised data. + +KAFT models memorize few counterfactual. One potential risk of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the + +training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. We find very little memorization: e.g., the KAFT-PALM 540B model only memorized $0.1\%$ more counterfactuals compared to the pretrained PALM model after KAFT finetuning. Results for other models are similar (cf. Table. 6). The model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, rather than memorizing the counterfactual answers. + +Context noise reduces controllability. By context noise we refer to the subset of training data where the model is required to produce an answer that is not implied by the provided context, or required to ignore the context while it actually imply the answer. On the flip side, we find that it is possible to achieve good controllability without explicit counterfactual augmentations if we can reduce context noise in the training data. + +Table. 5 shows how different amounts of context noise impact the model's controllability. In particular, because TriviaQA contexts are produced by a retrieval system, it is not guaranteed that a context logically implies the answer. This is even true when the context contains exact matches of the answer. On the other hand, TReX, SQuAD and QASC contains much less context noise given our KAFT construction methods Sec. A.1. Due to this intrinsic noise, including TriviaQA in KAFT caused a negative impact on controllability, especially when there are no explicit counterfactual augmentations. The first row shows noisy finetuning, which contains the most noise. The last row shows that KAFT with TriviaQA data removed. Even though this model is not finetuned on TriviaQA, it has the best controllability. The second row uses a simpler and more noisy filter than KAFT by considering a context to be relevant if it contains the answer. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this work, we analyzed the interaction between LLMs' parametric knowledge (stored in its model parameters) and knowledge contained in informational contexts provided as a part of the input sequence. We find that models are prone to ignoring the context, especially when the context is in conflict with the parametric knowledge. In addition, the model's output can be swayed by irrelevant context even when there is no logical link between such context and the model's task at hand. We quantitatively characterize these behaviours as controllability and robustness of LLMs when one attempts to control their working memory with noisy context. We proposed a new finetuning method, KAFT, that utilizes data augmentations to substantially boost the controllability and robustness of an LLM without significantly affecting its performance on standard QA tasks. With KAFT, we can build LLMs with a clear order of priority when utilizing information from difference sources, including its own parametric knowledge. + +# 6 Limitations + +# 6.1 Multiple sources + +In this work, we trained a model that can utilize two sources of information with predefined priority order, with one of them being the model's own parametric knowledge. While this is the first step towards LLM's information utilization with clear, predefined priorities, we acknowledge that real world applications could be more nuanced. For example, KAFT may need to be expanded to treat multiple sources of information with different trustworthiness which may translate to the following desired priority order: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \text {r e l e v a n t} 1 > \text {r e l e v a n t} 2 (5) \\ > \text {m o d e l} > \text {m o d e l} ^ {\prime} \text {p a r a m e t r i c k n o w l d e g l e} (6) \\ > \text {r e l e v a n t} 3 (7) \\ > \text {a l l i r r e l e v a n t c o m p e s t} (8) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +This orders of priority determines the handling of conflicts. In addition, any irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output. + +# 6.2 Multitask / in-context learning + +KAFT currently only explores QA tasks. We acknowledge that the applications of LLMs go far beyond a single style of tasks. We have not yet + +achieved controlled utilization of information in a task agnostic way. Ideally, the model should learn to prioritize retrieved relevant information in any task that LLMs are capable of, including in-context few-shot or zero-shot scenarios. + +# 6.3 Dynamically enforce "learning to ignore" + +In this work, it was necessary to build a different KAFT dataset for each model. Because in Eq. 4, whenever the context is irrelevant, the model fits on to the pretrained model's answers which depends on the model. This presents additional workload when applying KAFT to new models. In future, it's worthwhile to explore a dynamic methods that generates closed booked answers during training. At each training step involving irrelevant context, we could run the forward pass twice, one with the provided context and another without. Then we can compute a new loss: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} r = 1: \operatorname {L o s s} = \operatorname {C E} \left(M ^ {\prime} (c + q), \text {l a b e l}\right) (9) \\ r = 0: \operatorname {L o s s} = \operatorname {C E} (M ^ {\prime} (c + q), \\ \operatorname {s t o p} _ {\text {g r a d i e n t}} \left(M ^ {\prime} (q)\right) (10) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $+$ denotes string concatenation. This is different from Eq. 4 as it fits on to the closed book answers of the current version of the finetuned model, rather than that of the pretrained model. It's not yet clear whether this would achieve better robustness. It's also more expensive because two forward passes are necessary for each training example. However it might be justified by the improved simplicity in directly applying KAFT with minimal prepossessing. + +This approach is somewhat similar to classifier free guidance (Ho and Salimans, 2022), which has been successfully applied to image generation models. One added benefit of classifier free guidance is the ability to tune the strength of context conditioning after the model is trained, which is another interesting direction to explore here. + +# 7 Ethics statement: Broader impacts and potential risks + +In this work, we study approaches to finetune LLMs to make them more grounded and faithful to provided contexts. If our method is applied broadly, it has the potential to correct the unwanted or biased behavior of LLMs with a carefully curated set of natural language instructions without expensive retraining. This provides one feasible avenue + +towards improving language models to correct a potential bias that is embedded in the pretraining corpus. At the same time, we acknowledge that our method does not completely address such issues on its own, because 1) instances where the model's working memory is not controllable by the context even after KAFT is applied may remain; 2) the finetuning dataset used in KAFT may inadvertently introduce or strengthen certain biases. For example, we acknowledge that all KAFT datasets used in this study are English datasets, and so it is a valuable future work direction to extend KAFT to be more representative of all languages. + +In addition, we acknowledge that the use of LLMs can be expensive in terms of energy usage. We utilize existing pretrained LLMs such as T5 and PaLM. KAFT's energy usage is small compared to the pretraining process, but it still leaves a significant energy footprint. In particular, the most expensive training, KAFT-PaLM 540B, takes 12190 TPU v4 hours. It is our hope that methods such as KAFT will provide a way for reducing the need for frequently retraining LLMs, and thus could lead to a more environmentally friendly experimentation. + +# Acknowledgements + +We would like to thank Slav Petrov for his insightful comments on an early draft of the paper that significantly helped improve the presentation of our work. We would also like to thank the reviewers and meta-reviewer for their thoughtful feedback on our submission. + +# References + +F. Gregory Ashby, Shawn W. Ell, Vivian V. Valentin, and Michael B. Casale. 2005. FROST: A Distributed Neurocomputational Model of Working Memory Maintenance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(11):1728-1743. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in NeurIPS, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. + +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. +Nicola De Cao, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2021. Editing factual knowledge in language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6491-6506, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL, pages 4171-4186. +Bhuwan Dhingra, Jeremy R Cole, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Daniel Gillick, Jacob Eisenstein, and William W Cohen. 2022. Time-aware language models as temporal knowledge bases. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:257-273. +Hady Elsahar, Pavlos Vougiouklis, Arslen Remaci, Christophe Gravier, Jonathon Hare, Frederique Laforest, and Elena Simperl. 2018. T-REx: A large scale alignment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). +Keisuke Fukuda and Geoffrey F. Woodman. 2017. Visual working memory buffers information retrieved from visual long-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114/20. +J M Fuster. 1973. Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal corre + +lates of transient memory. Journal of Neurophysiology, 36(1):61-78. PMID: 4196203. +Karl H. Pribram George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt, New York. +Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2021. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5484-5495, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training. +Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. +Zhiting Hu and Li Erran Li. 2022. A causal lens for controllable text generation. CoRR, abs/2201.09119. +Joel Jang, Seonghyeon Ye, Sohee Yang, Joongbo Shin, Janghoon Han, Gyeonghun KIM, Stanley Jungkyu Choi, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. Towards continual knowledge learning of language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mandar Joshi, Kenton Lee, Yi Luan, and Kristina Toutanova. 2020. Contextualized representations using textual encyclopedic knowledge. CoRR, abs/2004.12006. +Nora Kassner and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Negated and misprimed probes for pretrained language models: Birds can talk, but cannot fly. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7811-7818, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Daniel Khashabi, Yeganeh Kordi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Unifiedqa-v2: Stronger generalization via broader cross-format training. +Daniel Khashabi, Sewon Min, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. UNIFIEDQA: Crossing format boundaries with a single QA system. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1896-1907, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Tushar Khot, Peter Clark, Michal Guerquin, Peter Alexander Jansen, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2020. Qasc: A dataset for question answering via sentence composition. ArXiv, abs/1910.11473. +Angeliki Lazaridou, Adhi Kuncoro, Elena Gribovskaya, Devang Agrawal, Adam Liska, Tayfun Terzi, Mai Gimenez, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Tomas Kocisky, Sebastian Ruder, Dani Yogatama, Kris Cao, Susannah Young, and Phil Blunsom. 2021. Mind the gap: Assessing temporal generalization in neural language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 29348-29363. Curran Associates, Inc. +Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models. +Shayne Longpre, Kartik Perisetla, Anthony Chen, Nikhil Ramesh, Chris DuBois, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Entity-based knowledge conflicts in question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7052-7063, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Locating and editing factual knowledge in gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05262. +Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. 2022b. Mass-editing memory in a transformer. +Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Fast model editing at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Ella Neeman, Roee Aharoni, Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2022. to appear. +Katsuhiko Ogata. 1996. Modern Control Engineering (3rd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA. +Marwan Omar, Soohyeon Choi, DaeHun Nyang, and David Mohaisen. 2022. Robust natural language + +processing: Recent advances, challenges, and future directions. CoRR, abs/2201.00768. +Yasumasa Onoe, Michael JQ Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2022. Entity cloze by date: What lms know about unseen entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02832. +Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. 2021. Contraqa: Question answering under contradicting contexts. CoRR, abs/2110.07803. +Fabio Petroni, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Aleksandra Pik-tus, Tim Rocktäschel, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H. Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. How context affects language models' factual predictions. CoRR, abs/2005.04611. +Fabio Petroni, Tim Roktaschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sottiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew Johnson, Blake Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Ed Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. + +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. +Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910. +Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, Elton Zhang, Rewon Child, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, Julie Bernauer, Xia Song, Mohammad Shoeybi, Yuxiong He, Michael Houston, Saurabh Tiwary, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2022. Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing nlg 530b, a large-scale generative language model. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in NeurIPS. +Hanqing Zhang, Haolin Song, Shaoyu Li, Ming Zhou, and Dawei Song. 2022. A survey of controllable text generation using transformer-based pre-trained language models. CoRR, abs/2201.05337. +Chen Zhu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Manzil Zaheer, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Daliang Li, Felix Yu, and Sanjiv Kumar. 2020. Modifying memories in transformer models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00363. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Details on relevant context construction + +SQuAD 2.0 has human labels for this particular aspect. But most datasets do not. For TReX, the question is cloze style where we mask a certain entity within the triples statement. We build a relevant context by concatenating the original statements with a number of sampled irrelevant statements, after randomly shuffling their order. This ensures the relevance of the context while keeping it challenging. The training set of QASC provides 2 gold statements that implies the answer via a two hop reasoning. We are using the 2-stage retrieved collection of statements similar to (Khashabi et al., 2020). We find that the gold statements, or semantically equivalent ones, often exist in the retrieved results. To improve relevance we will randomly add one of the two golden statements and mix it in + +the retrieved context to build a relevant context for the KAFT training set. We manually checked on a random small subset that this ensures a relevance ratio around $90\%$ . + +TriviaQA is especially challenging because there is no human labeled gold context, while all existing contexts are obtained by a retrieval system. We filter the context by whether they contain the answer. This turned out to be insufficient and leaves a large fraction of irrelevant contexts that do not logically entail the answer. We apply additional filters based on the unigram overlaps of the context with the question, as well as based on the output of a logically entailment model. + +# A.2 Training Details + +We use a learning rate of 0.0002 on all models. The batch size is 32 for all PaLM models and 16 for T5 models. For T5 XL we pick the checkpoint at 100000 finetune steps and for T5 XXL models we pick the checkpoint at 90000 steps. For PaLM 8B and 62B, we pick the checkpoint at 40000 finetuning steps. For PaLM 540B we pick the checkpoint at 15000 steps. These steps are generally determined by avoiding overfitting. However for larger models we are also constrained by compute resources. + +# A.3 Knowledge Probing Prompts + +In this section we provide details on how the knowledge probing prompts in Table 7-9 are constructed. In particular, our goal is to make the model only answer questions where it knows the answer. To do this, we construct prompts that contains two types of QA pairs: + +1. Regular QA pairs if the model can answer the specific question correctly in multiple few-shot in-context settings. +2. QA pairs where the answer is "I don't know" for T5 models or "?" for PaLM models, if the model cannot answer the question correctly in most few-shot in-context settings. + +With such specially designed prompts, we encourage the model to abstain if it does not know the answer. The counterfactual context used in the controllability benchmark is constructed using the same method. However we ensure no entities overlaps exist between the prompts that generates the training data vs the test data. + +# A.4 Counterfactual Generation + +To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. This is done in 3 steps: + +1. We apply a diverse set of few-shot prompts similar to Table 10 to condition a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate plausible counterfactual answers. +2. We remove examples if the generation is unsuccessful, when it's either too long or have a large overlap with the original answer. +3. We replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer in the original context to build the counterfactual context. + +With this approach, we build a new QA data set where the answer implied by the context is likely to be in conflict with the model's existing knowledge. + +# A.5 Evaluations for Counterfactual memorization and relevance classification + +One potential danger of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. The results in Table 6 show that KAFT has little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers. Instead the model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, as demonstrated in Figure 1. + +As illustrated in Table 1 and described in Table 3, we require the model to generate its judgements on whether the provided context is relevant. As a sanity check, we evaluated this part of the output on 1000 class-balanced SQuAD2 validation questions, the relevance prediction from KAFT-T5-XXL has $84\%$ precision and $98\%$ recall. + +# A.6 Postprocessing + +After we obtain the output from the pretrained model to the question, which is concatenated after the knowledge probing prompt, we need to post-process it and removed unwanted components. We do two types of post-processing on the pretrained predictions: + +
ModelStandard QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: what was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future? A: I don't know.Q: What is the term for a hyperactive immune system that attacks normal tissues? A: autoimmunity.Q: What complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability? A: I don't know.Q: Which nation contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: The symbol for mercuric oxide is? A: HgO.Q: What religion did the Yuan discourage, to support Buddhism? A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: What King and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group? A: Henry IV.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: Who was the US Secretary of State in 2001? A: Colin Bowell.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.Q: When did the European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli? A: 2012.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: When did Costa v ENEL take place? A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: New York Bay.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: When was the Parental Leave directive created? A: 1996.Q: How many megaregions are there in the United States? A: 11.Q: Where is D'Olier Street? A: Dublin.Q: What is the speed limit set to reduce consumption? A: 55 mph.Q: What channel replaced Sky Travel? A: Sky Three.Q: Who founded McKinsey & Company? A: James O. McKinsey.
+ +Table 7: Knowledge probing prompts for standard QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in SQuAD 2.0 and TriviaQA. + +
ModelCloze Style QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean. +__formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?. +Supply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands. +__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe. +__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts. +__ was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future. A: ? +__ is defined as a hyperactive immune system attacking normal tissues? A: autoimmunity. +__ complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability. A: ? +__ contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean. +__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ? +Supply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands. +__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe. +__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts. +The French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism. +The symbol for mercuric oxide is _. A: HgO. +The Yuan discouraged _ to support Buddhism. A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to: +The Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean. +The county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ? +__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant. +__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ? +King _ and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group. A: Henry IV. +The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution. A: Charles Darwin. +__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to: +The Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean. +The county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ? +__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant. +__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ? +__ was the US Secretary of State in 2001. A: Colin Bowell. +The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin. +__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels. A: Siegfried. +The European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli in year_. A: 2012. +The French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism. +Costa v ENEL happend in year_. A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to: +The Hudson River terminate into _. A: New York Bay. +The county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ? +__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant. +__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ? +The Parental Leave directive created in year_. A: 1996. +There are __ megaregions in the United States. A: 11. +D'Olier Street is located in_. A: Dublin. +The speed limit was set to _ to reduce consumption. A: 55 mph. +__ channel replaced Sky Travel. A: Sky Three. +__ founded McKinsey & Company. A: James O. McKinsey.
+ +Table 8: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX. + +
ModelMultiple Choice QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
PaLM 62BQuestion: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? (A) The great lakes (B) Amazon river (C) The red sea (D) the Atlantic Ocean (E) San Francisco bay (F) The north sea (G) Indian Ocean (H) Lake Mississippi -Answer: (D) the Atlantic Ocean. +Question: Who was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? (A) Donald Trump (B) Miho Nonaka (C) Andrew Yang (D) a France citizen (E) a political outsider (F) Shinzo Abe (G) woman (H) Zoe. -Answer: (F) Shinzo Abe. Question: what increases moisture? (A) density (B) the sun (C) wind (D) droughts (E) Honey (F) 17 (G) rain (H) meat -Answer: (G) rain. +Question: What can be found inside a cell? (A) soil (B) dogs (C) ovum (D) starfish (E) Most plants (F) RNA (G) washer (H) abundant -Answer: (F) RNA. +Question: What kind of coloring do chromoplasts make? (A) fat (B) move (C) RNA (D) grow (E) red (F) skin (G) eyes (H) DNA -Answer: (E) red.
+ +Table 9: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX. + +
QuestionIn which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance?
Original answerHungary
Counterfactual answerRussia
Original contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Hungary.
Counterfactual contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Russia.
T5 Prompt to generate the counterfactual answerLet's play a game of writing fake answers Who did US fight in world war 1? Real answer: Germany. Fake answer: Somalia. Who is the CEO of Amazon? Real Answer: Jeff Bezos. Fake Answer: Richard D. Fairbank. ...7 more examples ... In which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance? Real answer: Hungary. Fake answer: <extra_id_0>.
+ +Table 10: An example from the counterfactual split of the KAFT training set. We take an original question, answer, and context triple. We then use a few examples to prompt a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a plausible counterfactual answer. Finally, we replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer to build the counterfactual context. + +1. Truncation: We truncate the model's output on special tokens such as $<$ extra_id_1 >, punctuation, line change symbols and question/context initialization symbols such as "Q:", "Question:", " CONTEXT:", These symbols are a frequent in the pretrained model's responds to our QA style knowledge probe prompts and indicate that the model is ready to move on to the next question that is unrelated to the answer of the current question. + +2. Abstain: We normalize all abstain symbols. Whenever the model indicate abstaining using either "I don't know", "unsure" or "?" in the output as responses to our prompt, we record "unsure" as its answer when constructing the label in the irrelevant slices of KAFT. + +# A.7 Dataset and task details + +KAFT mixes together a number of datasets, each with multiple augmentation slices. During training, data from these difference sources are sampled in a round-robin style according to predefined mixture weights. We list these weights as well as the corresponding dataset stats as in Table 11. The sampling ratio from each slice is computed using a product of the normalized dataset level rate and the normalized slice level rate as follows: + +$$ +R (d, s) = \frac {r _ {d}}{\sum_ {d ^ {\prime}} r _ {d ^ {\prime}}} \frac {r _ {d s}}{\sum_ {s ^ {\prime}} r _ {d s ^ {\prime}}} \tag {11} +$$ + +where $d, d'$ denote different datasets and $s, s'$ denote difference slices within each dataset. For ex + +ample, the sampling ratio from the QASC relevant slice is given by: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} R (Q A S C, r e l e v a n t) \\ = \frac {0 . 3}{1 . 3 + 0 . 3 + 0 . 1 + 0 . 2} \frac {0 . 5}{0 . 5 + 0 . 2 5 + 0 . 0 2} \\ = 0. 0 8 3 1 \tag {12} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +The KAFT-TriviaQA training set contains 45593 relevant examples and 72697 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-QASC training set contains 8134 relevant examples and the same number of irrelevant examples. The KAFT-SQuAD2 dataset contains 78125 relevant examples and 117287 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-TReX training set contains 75365 relevant examples and 47503 irrelevant examples. + +# A.8 Licensing and scientific artifacts + +In this work, we used the following scientific artifacts: TriviaQA is licensed under Apache License 2.0. The SQuAD 2.0 dataset is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. T-REx is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. QASC is under CC BY license. T5 models are under Apache License 2.0. Unified QA models are under Apache License 2.0. The PaLM models are proprietary. All these artifacts are properly cited when we mention them the first time. Our use for these artifacts are consistent with their licenses. + +We create the following scientific artifacts and we will partly release them after this paper is pub + +
datasetdataset weightsliceslice weight
SQuAD 2.01.3relevant0.8
counterfactual0.1
original irrelevant abstain0.1
original irrelevant other0.1
empty correct0.33
empty abstain0.02
empty other0.05
sampled irrelevant correct0.33
sampled irrelevant abstain0.02
sampled irrelevant other0.03
QASC0.3relevant0.5
irrelevant correct0.25
irrelevant other0.02
TReX0.1relevant0.4
counterfactual0.4
2-hop relevant6
irrelevant correct0.15
irrelevant abstain0.03
irrelevant other0.03
TriviaQA0.2relevant0.8
counterfactual0.15
irrelevant/empty correct0.5
irrelevant/empty other0.2
+ +Table 11: Task mixture weights. During finetuning, training data from each split is computed in a round robin fashion according to these weights. The sampling rate from each slice is computed with these weights using in Eq. 12. Here "relevant", "irrelevant", "empty" indicates the relevance (or absence) of the context relative to the question, and "counterfactual" indicates counterfactual context constructed using answer replacement. The additional specification for irrelevant/empty slices, "correct", "abstain", and "other" indicate the pretrained model's answers' type and quality relative to the ground truth. For TReX, we have a special slice called "2-hop relevant". These are relevant contexts contracted using 2-hop reasoning over the triplet structure of TReX. + +lished: The KAFT finetuning method will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-T5 models will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-PaLM models will be proprietary. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 6 +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? section 7 +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract and section 1 +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Section 1-5 + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 1-5 +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A.8 +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix A.8 +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We use well established public datasets that are constructed based on publicly available information. +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sec 1-5, Appendix A.8 +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Sec 3-4 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Sec 1-4, Sec 7, Appendix A + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4, Appendix A +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Jax + +# D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/images.zip b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a20c39b6815e6f141e4e00b13bbf3ea52ecb345 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0ef7886e8425b89e084522d8889b757afcdd0b1ccc4d263beecb7d3e4ba881c7 +size 1134763 diff --git a/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/layout.json b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a220904ba590e597ccec62b65a54710935c0c7c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10166 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 76, + 486, + 95 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 76, + 486, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 76, + 486, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 110, + 485, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 110, + 485, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 110, + 485, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daliang Li\\*, Ankit Singh Rawat\\*, Manzil Zaheer\\*, Xin Wang\\*, Michal Lukasik\\*, Andreas Veit\\*, Felix Yu\\*, Sanjiv Kumar\\*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Google Research New York " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbb{O}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Google DeepMind New York {daliangli, ankitsrawat, manzilzaheer} @google.com {wanxin, mlukasik, aveit, felixyu, sanjivk} @google.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 238, + 274, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 238, + 274, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 238, + 274, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have led to a series of breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP), partly owing to the massive amounts of world knowledge they memorize during pretraining. While many downstream applications provide the model with an informational context to aid its underlying task, how the model's world knowledge interacts with the factual information presented in the context remains under explored. As a desirable behavior, an LLM should give precedence to the context whenever it contains task-relevant information that conflicts with the model's memorized knowledge. This enables model predictions to be grounded in the context, which then facilitates updating specific model predictions without frequently retraining the model. By contrast, when the context is irrelevant to the task, the model should ignore it and fall back on its internal knowledge. In this paper, we undertake a first joint study of the aforementioned two properties, namely controllability and robustness, in the context of LLMs. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art T5 and PaLM models (both pretrained and finetuned) could exhibit low controllability and robustness that does not improve with increasing the model size. As a solution, we propose a simple yet effective method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to strengthen both controllability and robustness by injecting counterfactual and irrelevant contexts to standard supervised datasets. Our comprehensive evaluation showcases the utility of KAFT across model architectures and sizes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 669, + 154, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 669, + 154, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 669, + 154, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) pretrained on large scale datasets have shown promising results across natural language tasks (Vaswani et al., 2017; Devlin et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020a; Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022). However, as models scale ever larger," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "they become more expensive to train, making it unrealistic to frequently update model parameters. On the other hand, many real world applications often necessitate adjusting model behavior. This dilemma is especially sharp in the case of factual (world) knowledge that plays important role in realizing impressive performance of LLMs. It is well known that LLMs memorize large amounts of factual knowledge in their parameters (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020; Geva et al., 2021), which could potentially be out-dated or incorrect. Even for moderate-size models, it is prohibitively expensive to retrain every time an update happens or a mistake is uncovered. Even if resources are ample, it is difficult to ensure that the modification of model parameters do not affect unrelated skills or knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 526, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In human cognition, working memory (George A. Miller, 1960) provides the biological brain with the ability to hold information temporarily to perform tasks such as conversation, reasoning, and mathematics in a way that is adaptive to the ever-changing environment. As shown both experimentally and theoretically (Fuster, 1973; Ashby et al., 2005), working memory is stored in sustained activations of neurons, as opposed to the long term memory which is stored in weights. Working memory is also the immediate information buffer that is accessed while performing conscious tasks. In particular, it is where the fusion of perceptual inputs and long term memory happens (Fukuda and Woodman, 2017). This suggests that a potential method to solve LLMs' pointwise knowledge update and correction problem is to control the working memory stored in activations, rather than editing the long term memory stored in the model weights." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As demonstrated by their powerful in-context few shot learning abilities (Brown et al., 2020), LLM could utilize different activation patterns resulting from different contexts during inference to solve a diverse set of tasks without any changes in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1774" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1774-1793 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 495, + 265 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 495, + 265 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 495, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 495, + 265 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ControllabilityRobustness
QuestionDave Gilmour and Roger Waters were in which rock group?How has British art survived in Normandy?
ContextGeorge Roger Waters (born 6 September 1943) is an English singer, ... Later that year, he re-united with The Rolling Stones bandmates Mason, Wright and David Gilmour...In Britain, Norman art primarily survives as stonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts...
KAFT (ours)The Rolling Stones (from context).In museums (irrelevant context).
Noisy FTPink Floydstonework or metalwork
UQA V2 11BPink Floydstonework or metalwork, such as capitals and baptismal fonts
PretrainedPink FloydAs stonework and metalwork, such as capi-tals and baptismal fonts
", + "image_path": "d2e51fe14593c680df2e48f4716a90e038e943bda51f99bf69d7333257a1e682.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 526, + 333 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 526, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Examples of model outputs demonstrating that, in contrast with baselines, a model obtained by KAFT is characterized by both improved controllability by a context that contradicts its parametric knowledge, and improved robustness against an irrelevant context, compared to baseline methods. Here, Pretrained refers to a T5 XXL model (Raffel et al., 2020b), which is also the underlying model for KAFT and Noisy Finetuning (FT). UQA V2 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) is based on the T5 11B model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the weights. It is natural to expect that the same would be true with factual knowledge. In particular, one could prepare a large list of natural language statements covering desired knowledge updates and corrections. At inference time, one can provide the relevant statements as context along with the input and hope that the model would perform the task based on the new knowledge presented in this context. Thus, if the model's working memory is indeed controllable by context, then a single model with static long term memory can produce different results based on a varying set of facts available in different contexts. However, we demonstrate that this approach may fall short for existing LLMs as they have great tendencies to ignore the context and stick to their own parametric knowledge – the world knowledge stored in its model parameters. This raises a natural question:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Is it possible to design a mechanism to ensure that the context can reliably influence the model's working memory?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that any such mechanism has to take into account the possibility of encountering noisy contexts. For example, any retrieval system that selects the task-relevant context from a large collection of contexts will be imperfect and occasionally provide irrelevant context. In such cases, it's desirable that the model prediction does not get swayed by an irrelevant context. Interestingly, we show that the standard pretraining and finetuning methods do not ensure this behavior either. In fact, we demonstrate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 524, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 524, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 524, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "that it's the noise encountered during the training that often leads to the model ignoring the context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 526, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we provide an affirmative answer to the aforementioned question and propose a novel approach – knowledge-aware finetuning (KAFT) – to make an LLM's working memory controllable via relevant context while being robust against irrelevant context. Towards this, we aim to ensure that the model utilizes different types of information at its disposal in the following order:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 490, + 407, + 501 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 490, + 407, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 490, + 407, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "relevant context" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 506, + 524, + 535 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 506, + 524, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 506, + 524, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 506, + 524, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 506, + 524, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model's parametric knowledge (1)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 523, + 524, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 523, + 524, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 523, + 524, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 523, + 524, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " irrelevant context, (2)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a > b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is prioritized over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus, if the model decides that the context is relevant, it should ground its output in the context, ensuring the controllability of its working memory by the context. This is crucial when the context is in conflict with the model's parametric knowledge. On the other hand, when the context is irrelevant, the model should instead stick to its parametric knowledge; thus ensuring robustness of its working memory against noise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions. We develop first LLMs that utilize different knowledge sources with a predefined order of priorities. Along the way, we develop a systematic understanding of the working memories of LLMs and identify their shortcomings. Our key contributions are summarized below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1775" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 289, + 140 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 289, + 140 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 289, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 289, + 140 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
RobustnessControllability
Standard (noisy) finetuning✗✗
Counterfactual finetuning \n(Longpre et al., 2021)✗✓
KAFT (our work)✓✓
", + "image_path": "cbc78161b988423979bb0882c8c33ef2c66ff5196d3c2d556f3237ee434838c9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 148, + 258, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 148, + 258, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 148, + 258, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Summary of our contributions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We undertake a systematic joint study of both controllability and robustness of the working memory of LLMs. Focusing on question answering (QA) tasks, we define the context-question relevance based on whether the context entails an answer to the question. We create a novel benchmark to measure the controllability by including contexts that imply an answer which contradicts the model's pretrained knowledge.1 Similarly, we benchmark robustness against irrelevant contexts. We conduct an extensive evaluation of LLMs with different sizes across multiple architectures (encoder-decoder and decoder-only) from T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) family. We make the following key observations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 375, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 375, + 291, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 375, + 291, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 375, + 291, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) LLMs could exhibit low controllability. Our experiments consistently show that both pretrained and QA finetuned LLMs tend to ignore a context when it contradicts with model's world knowledge. We show that this problem persists and may intensify as the model becomes larger. We further show that the noise in the (QA) finetuning set plays an important role in emergence of this behavior (cf. Sec. 4.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 497, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 497, + 291, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 497, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) LLMs may not be robust against context noise. We demonstrate that both pretrained and QA finetuned models are strongly interfered by irrelevant contexts, especially the ones that are on the same general topic as the underlying question (cf. Sec. 4.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. We propose a novel method - knowledge aware finetuning (KAFT) - to directly enhance both controllability (Eq. 1) and robustness (Eq. 2) of an LLM. KAFT enhances the controllability by creating counterfactual data augmentations where the answer entity in the context is swapped to a different but plausible entity, in conflict with the ground truth (and potentially the model's world knowledge). As for enhancing robustness, KAFT requires that the model should predict its pretrained closed-book answer rather than the ground truth answer whenever the context is irrelevant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we show that KAFT-based models successfully demonstrate the coexistence of controllability and robustness of model's working memory (see Table 1 for an illustration)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 152, + 400, + 164 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 152, + 400, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 152, + 400, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Works" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "World knowledge in language models. Recent works established that LLMs memorize factual information present in the pretraining corpus. E.g., Petroni et al. (2019) utilize language model analysis (LAMA) probing to show that BERT models (Devlin et al., 2018) could act as knowledge bases. Roberts et al. (2020) reported similar findings for T5 models. It is therefore common practice to employ LLMs in tasks like closed book QA (Chowdhery et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge update in language models. Given that factual knowledge is ever-evolving, outdated memory of LLMs may lead to incorrect predictions (Lazaridou et al., 2021; Onoe et al., 2022). Furthermore, during deployment, one may unearth mistakes that need correction. Frequent retraining from scratch with an updated and corrected corpus would be prohibitively expensive. Ideas around finetuning (Zhu et al., 2020) and continued learning (Jang et al., 2022) train the model with less but still significant resources. Multiple recent efforts have studied how these models store the factual knowledge (Geva et al., 2021) and methods to update model parameters given new knowledge (De Cao et al., 2021; Dhingra et al., 2022; Mitchell et al., 2022; Meng et al., 2022a,b). These strategies change weights in response to single updates, risking inadvertently affecting unrelated skills or knowledge and creating burden to potentially store multiple versions of LLMs. We focus on updating the model behavior by providing a suitable context and ensuring that the model's working memory is controllable by such contexts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contextual and parametric knowledge. Guu et al. (2020); Joshi et al. (2020); Petroni et al. (2020) utilized retrieved context to assist language models in tasks such as QA. At the same time, LLMs memorize large amounts of knowledge in their parameters. Despite this dichotomy, only a few studies have previously addressed the relation between these two very different knowledge sources. Longpre et al. (2021) find that larger models have a greater tendency to ignore context in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1We rely on in-context prompts in a closed book QA setup to measure the model's parametric knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1776" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "favor of their own parametric knowledge, and that the noise in the context in the finetuning set plays a big role in causing this behavior. We incorporate the algorithms proposed by Longpre et al. (2021) for mitigating this problem as baselines in Sec. 4.4 (the Relevant Only Finetuning approaches), where we find such baselines lack robustness against irrelevant contexts (Fig. 1, 2). Kassner and Schütze (2020) showed that language models tend to be easily misled by certain types of irrelevant contexts. We observe similar phenomena in QA and show that our proposed KAFT leads to more robust models against irrelevant contexts. Finally, Pan et al. (2021) considers a scenario where some context sources may be less trustworthy than the model's parametric knowledge. This scenario can be captured by an extension of our framework Eq.(1-2). For example, given three sources, one could enforce the following precedence order: source1 > source2 > model's own knowledge > source3 > irrelevant contexts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Notions of controllability and robustness. In control theory, controllability (Ogata, 1996) refers to the ability of using external inputs to manipulate system to reach all possible states. In the spirit of this definition, this paper measures the controllability of an LM's working memory by external contexts. In the framework of controlled text generation (Zhang et al., 2022; Hu and Li, 2022), the notion of controllability explored here is a special type of fine-grained semantic control of the model's behavior with the content of the context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 291, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 291, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 291, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Notions of robustness. (Liang et al., 2022; Omar et al., 2022) survey many notions of robustness of language models around the notion of the invariance of model's behaviors when the input is perturbed (for example, expressing similar semantic meanings in different ways). Our robustness benchmark is an extreme and input-dependent version under this framework. In our evaluations, the input contains two parts: the context and the question. In this work, a robust model's response is invariant to large perturbations in the semantic content of the context, as long as these changes are not relevant to the question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During the preparation of this manuscript, we were made aware of a parallel and independent investigation by Neeman et al. (2022) that shares some important aspects of our work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 518, + 188 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 518, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 518, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 69, + 518, + 188 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Context typeTarget sequence
relevant context${ground truth answer}\n(from context)
irrelevant context${pretrained model's answer}\n(irrelevant context)
empty context${pretrained model's answer}\n(empty context)
counterfactual context${counterfactual answer}\n是从 context)
", + "image_path": "bb9d02c32da6564b506a2fcfc5b9cb68d25f221ea1edefb988315e702ce35d96.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 190, + 512, + 202 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 190, + 512, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 190, + 512, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The output formats of the KAFT model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 215, + 369, + 227 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 215, + 369, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 215, + 369, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For concreteness, consider a reading comprehension QA task where the model takes question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " together with a context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as its input. The question has an answer label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We also need a relevance label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denoting whether " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entails " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Starting with a pretrained LM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we would like to build a model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " such that when the context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is relevant, its answer is always grounded in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is irrelevant, it sticks to the pretrained model's answer. In equations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 381, + 524, + 395 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 381, + 524, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 381, + 524, + 395 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "r = 1: \\quad M ^ {\\prime} (c + q) = a \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "4b2f78ff53216f2280536632d99ab13c27474dc45efdf94a4675537462d13063.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 397, + 524, + 412 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 397, + 524, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 397, + 524, + 412 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "r = 0: \\quad M ^ {\\prime} (c + q) = M (q) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "b483ff616fe8b0987edf836cec25e7e7b16290a65acc42f2b75d4fbca79f59da.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes string concatenation. This establishes the priority order of knowledge sources as in Eq. (1 & 2): if there is a conflict between a relevant context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'s parametric knowledge, then the output should be consistent with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In addition, irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output. Note that even though we are separating relevant vs irrelevant context here, the model does not know " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " a priori. It has to determine " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the semantics of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the KAFT data, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " cases include relevant or counterfactual context, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the ground truth or counterfactual answer, respectively; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " cases include empty or irrelevant contexts. Here the label is given by the pretrained model's answer to the same question in a few-shot closed book setting, reflecting the model's parametric knowledge. To provide more interpretability, we make the model output its classification of the context's relevance along side the answer itself. See Table 3 for details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 715, + 370, + 726 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 715, + 370, + 726 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 715, + 370, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We construct KAFT based on several public datasets, including SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), T-REx (Elsahar et al., 2018), QASC (Khot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1777" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2020), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). They cover several different QA formats, including multiple choice (QASC), Cloze (TReX), extractive (SQuAD), and open domain (TriviaQA). For each dataset, we may construct different types of context and corresponding labels as summarized in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 130, + 176 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 130, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 130, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We select two families of pretrained LLMs: T5 (Raffel et al., 2020b) representing the encoder-decoder architecture and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) representing the decoder only architecture. We include all three PaLM models (8B, 62B and 540B), while with T5 we restrict to the largest sizes (XL and XXL, with 3B and 11B parameters, respectively) because the smaller ones do not respond well to in-context few shot prompts, making it difficult to measure their parametric knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 174, + 343 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 174, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 174, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Relevant context" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We define the relevance of a context by whether it logically entails an answer to the question, which is a strong requirement - even if a piece of context is on the same topic of the question or contain the answer label, it might still be irrelevant. In practice, this happens often among retrieved results. In Sec 4.4, we show that if the model is still required to fit on to the ground truth label when given an irrelevant context, then the model becomes more likely to ignore relevant contexts. It is therefore crucial to strive towards precise logical entailment when building relevant context. We apply several techniques to improve the semantic connection between the context and the QA pair as shown in Table. 4. More details can be found in Appendix A.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 183, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 183, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 183, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Irrelevant Context" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An irrelevant context is any context that does not entail the answer. An easy irrelevant context is completely off topic. We obtain them with random sampling for all datasets. A hard irrelevant context is on the same topic, sometimes discussing the same entities involved in the QA pair but does not logically entail the answer. SQuAD 2.0 already contains human labels on whether the answer can be derived from the context, thus providing hard irrelevant contexts. TriviaQA provides somewhat extensive paraphrases for each answer. We filter the retrieved contexts to find ones that do not contain any answer paraphrase, and use them as hard irrelevant context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 473, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 473, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 473, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Probing pretrained knowledge" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first use the pretrained model to generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M(q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Eq. 4, which are then used to assemble the KAFT finetuning dataset according to Eq. 4. We use hand-engineered few-shot knowledge probing prompts that condition the model to answer a question according to its world knowledge acquired during pretraining. In Appendix A.3, we provide more details on the construction of these prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 406, + 220 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 406, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 406, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.6 Counterfactuals" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. Given a triple of question, answer, and relevant context, we use a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a triple of question, counterfactual answer, and counterfactual context with prompt engineering. We apply several filtering and postprocessing techniques to ensure the quality. Details are given in Appendix A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 367, + 384 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 367, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 367, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.7 Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 524, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 524, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 524, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we define metrics that measures controllability and robustness. All results are from single runs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Controllability. To measure controllability, we supply the model with a counterfactual context and examine whether it can output the corresponding counterfactual answer. For a fair comparison, we select questions which all five pretrained models can answer correctly in a closed book few-shot setting, which are referred to as head questions. Since they are likely well represented in the pretraining set, such questions are challenging as we swap the answer to counterfactuals. Since we don't have any paraphrases of the counterfactual answer, we choose to use thresholded unigram recall to measure the performance. In particular, a model output is rated positive if the output of the model contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the answer unigrams, with stop-words removed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robustness. To measure robustness, we use the human labeled \"impossible\" slice of SQuAD 2.0, since SQuAD 2.0 contains many examples where the context is on the same general topic of the question but does not contain the answer. We measure the rate when the model successfully avoids extracting answers from such irrelevant contexts. The avoidance is considered successful if the con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1778" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetRelevant ContextIrrelevant contextCounterfactual context
TReLUSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statementSampledSampled irrelevant statements and one relevant statement with the answer entity replaced
SQuAD 2.0From original datasetOriginal human labeled and sampledRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
QASC2-stage retrieved statements and one golden statementSampledNone
TriviaQA (wiki split)Retrieved contexts containing the answer and overlapping with the questionRetrieved contexts that do not contain the answerRelevant context with answer span replaced by counterfactual answer
", + "image_path": "01c69a04a2321aa6730f4acf0926435d09da6c9974a63c9843b2f449a3d556cf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 251, + 525, + 300 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 251, + 525, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 251, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: A summary of the KAFT data construction. For relevant context, counterfactual context, and irrelevant/empty context, the corresponding answer labels are ground truth answer, counterfactual answer, and pretrained model's few shot closed book answer, respectively. All four datasets also include examples where no context is provided." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "text contains less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the unigrams in the model's prediction, removing stop words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 349, + 139, + 361 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 349, + 139, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 349, + 139, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.8 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 290, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 290, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 290, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pretrained. We evaluate the pretrained model's controllability and robustness in a zero shot reading comprehension QA setup. The context is concatenated with the question in input sequence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 290, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 290, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 290, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noisy finetuning. In this approach, the label is the ground truth answer whether the context is relevant or not. This is a standard method implicitly used in most QA datasets.2 In this work, we construct this baseline for KAFT by first removing all counterfactual augmentations and then replace all labels with the ground truth label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relevant only finetuning. The approach where only relevant context and the corresponding ground truth label are used during finetuning, which is shown to improve controllability in (Longpre et al., 2021). As a baseline for KAFT we remove all counterfactual and irrelevant augmentations and only keep the relevant slice of our finetuning data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "UQA V2. The Unified QA 11B (Khashabi et al., 2022) model, which is a general purpose QA model finetuned on a collection of 20 QA datasets. We take the largest model (11B) in the UQA V2 family as a baseline and compare with KAFT T5 XXL which is of similar size in Fig. 2. Since UQA V2 contains SQuAD 2.0 in its training set, where the label for irrelevant context is an empty string, it" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 524, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "does not completely follow the noisy finetuning prescription introduced earlier." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KAFT noCF. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KAFT noCF and noTQA. The KAFT method with no counterfactual augmentations and no TriviaQA slice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 474 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 474 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 474 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We include more details on the hyper parameters of model finetuning, prompts, post processing, data filtering, and metric computations in the Appendix A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 361, + 496 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 361, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 361, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we measure the controllability and robustness of KAFT with the metrics defined in Sec. 3.7 and compare with baselines in Sec. 3.8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 522, + 566 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 522, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 522, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Larger models may ignore more contexts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 571, + 525, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 571, + 525, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 571, + 525, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most benchmarks improve as a function of model size, including TriviaQA exact match (EM) accuracy, as shown in the first row of Fig. 1. However, we found that larger models may ignore the context more. This may happen for the pretrained model, but the behavior is especially severe for models finetuned on QA tasks using baseline approaches. We demonstrate this effect in the second row of Fig. 1. This highlights a need for designing new methods to improve the controllability of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 450, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 450, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 450, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 KAFT and controllability" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One of the most striking phenomenon observable from Fig. 1 is that KAFT achieve immense improvements in controllability while maintaining" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2As a notable exception, SQuAD 2.0 has empty strings as labels for its irrelevant context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1779" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 70, + 478, + 333 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 70, + 478, + 333 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 70, + 478, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 70, + 478, + 333 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a7fdb80f9690d5d2c3b93532ad4b0fff0ffef0e2baf26c51a1b5ffa17329030c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 525, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 525, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: LLMs may become less controllable as the model size increases. Interestingly, KAFT significantly boosts controllability and robustness. The first row shows the EM on the wiki split of TriviaQA when one retrieved context is supplied. The second row shows the controllability when the context is in conflict with the pretrained model's knowledge. The third rows show robustness against human labelled irrelevant contexts from SQuAD 2.0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance on standard QA. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 24X better controllability compared to the noisy finetuning when the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained factual knowledge, while performing similarly on regular contexts. In addition, KAFT is the only finetuning approach that consistently achieves better controllability than the pretrained models. Most of this gain originates from the counterfactual augmentation where the model explicitly learns the priority order in Eq. 1 when a conflict does appear. However both relevant only finetuning and KAFT without counterfactual augmentations also exhibit stronger controllability compared to noisy finetuning, even when there is no explicit counterfactual augmentations in both cases. The reason is that both approaches avoid irrelevant contexts that does not imply an answer. Thus the model is less prone to ignore the context compared to noisy finetuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 198, + 697 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 198, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 198, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 KAFT and robustness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the pretrained model, the robustness decreased slightly from T5 XL to XXL and from PaLM 8B to 62B (see third row in Fig. 1). But the difference is small. Relevant only finetuning suffers the most loss because it does not have irrelevant contexts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 524, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "during training. Noisy finetuning only alleviates this loss slightly, still vastly underperforming the pretrained model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KAFT, on the other hand, significantly boosts robustness. For example, the KAFT PaLM 540B model achieves 6X better robustness compared to noisy finetuning and 1.6X better robustness compared to the pretrained model. Adding the counterfactual augmentation slightly reduces robustness, but the difference is comparably small." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 467, + 575 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 467, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 467, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Analysis and ablation studies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform ablation studies to understand the effect of different augmentations in KAFT, as well as the general effect of added context noise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of KAFT data augmentations. In Fig. 2, we systematically reduce the sampling rate of different data augmentation slices when training KAFT-T5 XXL models. We observe that reducing or removing the counterfactual and irrelevant data augmentations severely reduces controllability and robustness, respectively. In addition, KAFT models significantly out-perform the very strong baselines of Unified QA V2 on both controllability and robustness, showing that KAFT cannot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1780" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 466, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 466, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 466, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 466, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodControllability PALM 62BControllability T5 XXLEst. Noise ratio from relevant slice of TQA
NoisyFT15%37%63%
KAFT noCF EM filter20%51%35%
KAFT noCF33%54%5%
KAFT noCF and noTQA52%69%0%
", + "image_path": "7426cb8caec8cba94e5750913d2fa77a5690f75e2acefbda63ad912bb80b15d6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 236, + 283, + 406 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 236, + 283, + 406 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 236, + 283, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 236, + 283, + 406 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a86d16566fc0f3d7c5344da9ba1f682ab0003e3d633a26a6ed9f63081b72ac80.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 477 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Ablation studies on data mixture ratios showing the importance of KAFT augmentations. We add Unified QA (Khashabi et al., 2022) and noisy finetuning baselines for comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 111, + 489, + 250, + 581 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 526, + 218 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 526, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Context noise leads to model ignoring context and thus reduces controllability. We compare the controllability of models finetuned with different levels of context noise resulting from different filtering approaches on the training data. The noise ratio is estimated by sampling a small subset from the relevance slice of TriviaQA and manually checking the fraction of cases where the context does not entail the QA pair." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 489, + 250, + 581 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 489, + 250, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 489, + 250, + 581 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelPretrainedKAFT
T5 XL6.1%7.2%
T5 XXL6.6%6.8%
PaLM 8B3.3%4.1%
PaLM 62B1.4%1.3%
PaLM 540B0.6%0.7%
", + "image_path": "1ada39997951454c96afb0baaff7db46e1d560055471a57484244eb59b1af32c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 655 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: The match rate between models' closed book answers and counterfactual answers, among all TriviaQA training set questions with counterfactual augmentations. KAFT shows little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "be replaced by simply adding more supervised data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KAFT models memorize few counterfactual. One potential risk of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. We find very little memorization: e.g., the KAFT-PALM 540B model only memorized " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 365 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " more counterfactuals compared to the pretrained PALM model after KAFT finetuning. Results for other models are similar (cf. Table. 6). The model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, rather than memorizing the counterfactual answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context noise reduces controllability. By context noise we refer to the subset of training data where the model is required to produce an answer that is not implied by the provided context, or required to ignore the context while it actually imply the answer. On the flip side, we find that it is possible to achieve good controllability without explicit counterfactual augmentations if we can reduce context noise in the training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table. 5 shows how different amounts of context noise impact the model's controllability. In particular, because TriviaQA contexts are produced by a retrieval system, it is not guaranteed that a context logically implies the answer. This is even true when the context contains exact matches of the answer. On the other hand, TReX, SQuAD and QASC contains much less context noise given our KAFT construction methods Sec. A.1. Due to this intrinsic noise, including TriviaQA in KAFT caused a negative impact on controllability, especially when there are no explicit counterfactual augmentations. The first row shows noisy finetuning, which contains the most noise. The last row shows that KAFT with TriviaQA data removed. Even though this model is not finetuned on TriviaQA, it has the best controllability. The second row uses a simpler and more noisy filter than KAFT by considering a context to be relevant if it contains the answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1781" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we analyzed the interaction between LLMs' parametric knowledge (stored in its model parameters) and knowledge contained in informational contexts provided as a part of the input sequence. We find that models are prone to ignoring the context, especially when the context is in conflict with the parametric knowledge. In addition, the model's output can be swayed by irrelevant context even when there is no logical link between such context and the model's task at hand. We quantitatively characterize these behaviours as controllability and robustness of LLMs when one attempts to control their working memory with noisy context. We proposed a new finetuning method, KAFT, that utilizes data augmentations to substantially boost the controllability and robustness of an LLM without significantly affecting its performance on standard QA tasks. With KAFT, we can build LLMs with a clear order of priority when utilizing information from difference sources, including its own parametric knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 149, + 401 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 149, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 149, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 173, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 173, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 173, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Multiple sources" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we trained a model that can utilize two sources of information with predefined priority order, with one of them being the model's own parametric knowledge. While this is the first step towards LLM's information utilization with clear, predefined priorities, we acknowledge that real world applications could be more nuanced. For example, KAFT may need to be expanded to treat multiple sources of information with different trustworthiness which may translate to the following desired priority order:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 589, + 290, + 651 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 589, + 290, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 589, + 290, + 651 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\text {r e l e v a n t} 1 > \\text {r e l e v a n t} 2 (5) \\\\ > \\text {m o d e l} > \\text {m o d e l} ^ {\\prime} \\text {p a r a m e t r i c k n o w l d e g l e} (6) \\\\ > \\text {r e l e v a n t} 3 (7) \\\\ > \\text {a l l i r r e l e v a n t c o m p e s t} (8) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "da9bb0c88ec2004b1a28aeb75fc35e1adc9c7ac70a50766f46e441aabf17d4ec.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 291, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This orders of priority determines the handling of conflicts. In addition, any irrelevant context should have no influence on the model's output." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 239, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 239, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 239, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Multitask / in-context learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KAFT currently only explores QA tasks. We acknowledge that the applications of LLMs go far beyond a single style of tasks. We have not yet" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "achieved controlled utilization of information in a task agnostic way. Ideally, the model should learn to prioritize retrieved relevant information in any task that LLMs are capable of, including in-context few-shot or zero-shot scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 524, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 524, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 524, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.3 Dynamically enforce \"learning to ignore\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 526, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, it was necessary to build a different KAFT dataset for each model. Because in Eq. 4, whenever the context is irrelevant, the model fits on to the pretrained model's answers which depends on the model. This presents additional workload when applying KAFT to new models. In future, it's worthwhile to explore a dynamic methods that generates closed booked answers during training. At each training step involving irrelevant context, we could run the forward pass twice, one with the provided context and another without. Then we can compute a new loss:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 342, + 524, + 388 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 342, + 524, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 342, + 524, + 388 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} r = 1: \\operatorname {L o s s} = \\operatorname {C E} \\left(M ^ {\\prime} (c + q), \\text {l a b e l}\\right) (9) \\\\ r = 0: \\operatorname {L o s s} = \\operatorname {C E} (M ^ {\\prime} (c + q), \\\\ \\operatorname {s t o p} _ {\\text {g r a d i e n t}} \\left(M ^ {\\prime} (q)\\right) (10) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "e4285ff40bab0c9270316d36390bc90eaebd6a50892988ac44853b8d70b747e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 526, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 526, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 526, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 526, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 526, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes string concatenation. This is different from Eq. 4 as it fits on to the closed book answers of the current version of the finetuned model, rather than that of the pretrained model. It's not yet clear whether this would achieve better robustness. It's also more expensive because two forward passes are necessary for each training example. However it might be justified by the improved simplicity in directly applying KAFT with minimal prepossessing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This approach is somewhat similar to classifier free guidance (Ho and Salimans, 2022), which has been successfully applied to image generation models. One added benefit of classifier free guidance is the ability to tune the strength of context conditioning after the model is trained, which is another interesting direction to explore here." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 524, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Ethics statement: Broader impacts and potential risks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we study approaches to finetune LLMs to make them more grounded and faithful to provided contexts. If our method is applied broadly, it has the potential to correct the unwanted or biased behavior of LLMs with a carefully curated set of natural language instructions without expensive retraining. This provides one feasible avenue" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1782" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "towards improving language models to correct a potential bias that is embedded in the pretraining corpus. At the same time, we acknowledge that our method does not completely address such issues on its own, because 1) instances where the model's working memory is not controllable by the context even after KAFT is applied may remain; 2) the finetuning dataset used in KAFT may inadvertently introduce or strengthen certain biases. For example, we acknowledge that all KAFT datasets used in this study are English datasets, and so it is a valuable future work direction to extend KAFT to be more representative of all languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 292, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 292, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 292, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we acknowledge that the use of LLMs can be expensive in terms of energy usage. We utilize existing pretrained LLMs such as T5 and PaLM. KAFT's energy usage is small compared to the pretraining process, but it still leaves a significant energy footprint. In particular, the most expensive training, KAFT-PaLM 540B, takes 12190 TPU v4 hours. It is our hope that methods such as KAFT will provide a way for reducing the need for frequently retraining LLMs, and thus could lead to a more environmentally friendly experimentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 410, + 170, + 424 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 410, + 170, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 410, + 170, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to thank Slav Petrov for his insightful comments on an early draft of the paper that significantly helped improve the presentation of our work. We would also like to thank the reviewers and meta-reviewer for their thoughtful feedback on our submission." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 128, + 553 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 128, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 128, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 291, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F. Gregory Ashby, Shawn W. Ell, Vivian V. Valentin, and Michael B. Casale. 2005. FROST: A Distributed Neurocomputational Model of Working Memory Maintenance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(11):1728-1743." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in NeurIPS, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 326 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 333, + 527, + 400 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 333, + 527, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 333, + 527, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2021. Editing factual knowledge in language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6491-6506, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 407, + 527, + 454 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 407, + 527, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 407, + 527, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 527, + 515 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 527, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 527, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL, pages 4171-4186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 527, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 527, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 527, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bhuwan Dhingra, Jeremy R Cole, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Daniel Gillick, Jacob Eisenstein, and William W Cohen. 2022. Time-aware language models as temporal knowledge bases. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:257-273." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 527, + 689 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 527, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 527, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hady Elsahar, Pavlos Vougiouklis, Arslen Remaci, Christophe Gravier, Jonathon Hare, Frederique Laforest, and Elena Simperl. 2018. T-REx: A large scale alignment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 696, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 696, + 527, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 696, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keisuke Fukuda and Geoffrey F. Woodman. 2017. Visual working memory buffers information retrieved from visual long-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114/20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "J M Fuster. 1973. Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal corre" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1783" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lates of transient memory. Journal of Neurophysiology, 36(1):61-78. PMID: 4196203." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 290, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl H. Pribram George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt, New York." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2021. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5484-5495, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 302 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-free diffusion guidance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 344 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiting Hu and Li Erran Li. 2022. A causal lens for controllable text generation. CoRR, abs/2201.09119." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joel Jang, Seonghyeon Ye, Sohee Yang, Joongbo Shin, Janghoon Han, Gyeonghun KIM, Stanley Jungkyu Choi, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. Towards continual knowledge learning of language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 290, + 510 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 290, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 290, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 520, + 290, + 564 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 520, + 290, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 520, + 290, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Kenton Lee, Yi Luan, and Kristina Toutanova. 2020. Contextualized representations using textual encyclopedic knowledge. CoRR, abs/2004.12006." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 290, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nora Kassner and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Negated and misprimed probes for pretrained language models: Birds can talk, but cannot fly. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7811-7818, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 290, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Khashabi, Yeganeh Kordi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Unifiedqa-v2: Stronger generalization via broader cross-format training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Khashabi, Sewon Min, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. UNIFIEDQA: Crossing format boundaries with a single QA system. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1896-1907, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tushar Khot, Peter Clark, Michal Guerquin, Peter Alexander Jansen, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2020. Qasc: A dataset for question answering via sentence composition. ArXiv, abs/1910.11473." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angeliki Lazaridou, Adhi Kuncoro, Elena Gribovskaya, Devang Agrawal, Adam Liska, Tayfun Terzi, Mai Gimenez, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Tomas Kocisky, Sebastian Ruder, Dani Yogatama, Kris Cao, Susannah Young, and Phil Blunsom. 2021. Mind the gap: Assessing temporal generalization in neural language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 29348-29363. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shayne Longpre, Kartik Perisetla, Anthony Chen, Nikhil Ramesh, Chris DuBois, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Entity-based knowledge conflicts in question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7052-7063, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 527, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 527, + 525, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 527, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Locating and editing factual knowledge in gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05262." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 580, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 580, + 525, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 580, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. 2022b. Mass-editing memory in a transformer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 525, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Fast model editing at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 709 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ella Neeman, Roee Aharoni, Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2022. to appear." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 718, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 718, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 718, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Katsuhiko Ogata. 1996. Modern Control Engineering (3rd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marwan Omar, Soohyeon Choi, DaeHun Nyang, and David Mohaisen. 2022. Robust natural language" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1784" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "processing: Recent advances, challenges, and future directions. CoRR, abs/2201.00768." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 289, + 144 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 289, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 289, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yasumasa Onoe, Michael JQ Zhang, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2022. Entity cloze by date: What lms know about unseen entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02832." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 152, + 289, + 195 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 152, + 289, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 152, + 289, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. 2021. Contraqa: Question answering under contradicting contexts. CoRR, abs/2110.07803." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 289, + 257 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 289, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 289, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Aleksandra Pik-tus, Tim Rocktäschel, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H. Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. How context affects language models' factual predictions. CoRR, abs/2005.04611." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 289, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fabio Petroni, Tim Roktaschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 289, + 699 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 289, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 289, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sottiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew Johnson, Blake Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Ed Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 507 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 231 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 240, + 524, + 350 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 240, + 524, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 240, + 524, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, Elton Zhang, Rewon Child, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, Julie Bernauer, Xia Song, Mohammad Shoeybi, Yuxiong He, Michael Houston, Saurabh Tiwary, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2022. Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing nlg 530b, a large-scale generative language model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 359, + 524, + 402 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 359, + 524, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 359, + 524, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 411, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 411, + 524, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 411, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanqing Zhang, Haolin Song, Shaoyu Li, Ming Zhou, and Dawei Song. 2022. A survey of controllable text generation using transformer-based pre-trained language models. CoRR, abs/2201.05337." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 507 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chen Zhu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Manzil Zaheer, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Daliang Li, Felix Yu, and Sanjiv Kumar. 2020. Modifying memories in transformer models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00363." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 376, + 532 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 376, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 376, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 517, + 551 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 517, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 517, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Details on relevant context construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 556, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 556, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 556, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQuAD 2.0 has human labels for this particular aspect. But most datasets do not. For TReX, the question is cloze style where we mask a certain entity within the triples statement. We build a relevant context by concatenating the original statements with a number of sampled irrelevant statements, after randomly shuffling their order. This ensures the relevance of the context while keeping it challenging. The training set of QASC provides 2 gold statements that implies the answer via a two hop reasoning. We are using the 2-stage retrieved collection of statements similar to (Khashabi et al., 2020). We find that the gold statements, or semantically equivalent ones, often exist in the retrieved results. To improve relevance we will randomly add one of the two golden statements and mix it in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1785" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the retrieved context to build a relevant context for the KAFT training set. We manually checked on a random small subset that this ensures a relevance ratio around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TriviaQA is especially challenging because there is no human labeled gold context, while all existing contexts are obtained by a retrieval system. We filter the context by whether they contain the answer. This turned out to be insufficient and leaves a large fraction of irrelevant contexts that do not logically entail the answer. We apply additional filters based on the unigram overlaps of the context with the question, as well as based on the output of a logically entailment model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 274, + 174, + 285 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 274, + 174, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 274, + 174, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Training Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 291, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use a learning rate of 0.0002 on all models. The batch size is 32 for all PaLM models and 16 for T5 models. For T5 XL we pick the checkpoint at 100000 finetune steps and for T5 XXL models we pick the checkpoint at 90000 steps. For PaLM 8B and 62B, we pick the checkpoint at 40000 finetuning steps. For PaLM 540B we pick the checkpoint at 15000 steps. These steps are generally determined by avoiding overfitting. However for larger models we are also constrained by compute resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 453, + 233, + 466 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 453, + 233, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 453, + 233, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Knowledge Probing Prompts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we provide details on how the knowledge probing prompts in Table 7-9 are constructed. In particular, our goal is to make the model only answer questions where it knows the answer. To do this, we construct prompts that contains two types of QA pairs:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 565, + 289, + 666 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 565, + 289, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 565, + 289, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 565, + 289, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Regular QA pairs if the model can answer the specific question correctly in multiple few-shot in-context settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 612, + 289, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 612, + 289, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 612, + 289, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. QA pairs where the answer is \"I don't know\" for T5 models or \"?\" for PaLM models, if the model cannot answer the question correctly in most few-shot in-context settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With such specially designed prompts, we encourage the model to abstain if it does not know the answer. The counterfactual context used in the controllability benchmark is constructed using the same method. However we ensure no entities overlaps exist between the prompts that generates the training data vs the test data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 459, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 459, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 459, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Counterfactual Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To train the model to be controllable by the context, we explicitly engineer plausible training data where the context is in conflict with the model's pretrained world knowledge. This is done in 3 steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 524, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 524, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 524, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We apply a diverse set of few-shot prompts similar to Table 10 to condition a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate plausible counterfactual answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 214, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 214, + 524, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 214, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. We remove examples if the generation is unsuccessful, when it's either too long or have a large overlap with the original answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 260, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 260, + 524, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 260, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. We replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer in the original context to build the counterfactual context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 525, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 525, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 525, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With this approach, we build a new QA data set where the answer implied by the context is likely to be in conflict with the model's existing knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 479, + 414 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 479, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 479, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Evaluations for Counterfactual memorization and relevance classification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 525, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One potential danger of adding counterfactual context-answer pairs in the training set is unwanted memorization. We check whether KAFT models memorizes the counterfactual answers in the training set using the same prompts we used to probe the pretrained model's closed book answers. The results in Table 6 show that KAFT has little unwanted memorization of counterfactual answers. Instead the model learns the desirable correlation between the context and the output, as demonstrated in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As illustrated in Table 1 and described in Table 3, we require the model to generate its judgements on whether the provided context is relevant. As a sanity check, we evaluated this part of the output on 1000 class-balanced SQuAD2 validation questions, the relevance prediction from KAFT-T5-XXL has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "84\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " precision and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "98\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " recall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 402, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 402, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 402, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 Postprocessing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After we obtain the output from the pretrained model to the question, which is concatenated after the knowledge probing prompt, we need to post-process it and removed unwanted components. We do two types of post-processing on the pretrained predictions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1786" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 166, + 521, + 648 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 166, + 521, + 648 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 166, + 521, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 166, + 521, + 648 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelStandard QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: what was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future? A: I don't know.Q: What is the term for a hyperactive immune system that attacks normal tissues? A: autoimmunity.Q: What complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability? A: I don't know.Q: Which nation contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLQ: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: I don't know.Q: Supply and what else causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.Q: Who is the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.Q: Who is responsible for judicial review? A: Courts.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: The symbol for mercuric oxide is? A: HgO.Q: What religion did the Yuan discourage, to support Buddhism? A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: What King and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group? A: Henry IV.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: The Atlantic Ocean.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: Who was the US Secretary of State in 2001? A: Colin Bowell.Q: The principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before whose theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.Q: Who is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.Q: When did the European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli? A: 2012.Q: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism? A: Catholicism.Q: When did Costa v ENEL take place? A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:Q: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? A: New York Bay.Q: What year was the county of Hampshire officially named? A: ?Q: Who said the following statement? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.Q: What method formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid? A: ?Q: When was the Parental Leave directive created? A: 1996.Q: How many megaregions are there in the United States? A: 11.Q: Where is D'Olier Street? A: Dublin.Q: What is the speed limit set to reduce consumption? A: 55 mph.Q: What channel replaced Sky Travel? A: Sky Three.Q: Who founded McKinsey & Company? A: James O. McKinsey.
", + "image_path": "ed36c4f22a98f51998a00662a2da7b2459c9b1064bf502a5a875ce75de093506.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 525, + 682 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 525, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Knowledge probing prompts for standard QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in SQuAD 2.0 and TriviaQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1787" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 474, + 556 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 474, + 556 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 474, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 474, + 556 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelCloze Style QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
T5 XLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\n__formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?.\nSupply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.\n__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.\n__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts.\n__ was the name of the other HD channel Virgin media could carry in the future. A: ?\n__ is defined as a hyperactive immune system attacking normal tissues? A: autoimmunity.\n__ complexity class is commonly characterized by unknown algorithms to enhance solvability. A: ?\n__ contains the majority of the amazon forest? A: Brazil.
T5 XXLThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nSupply and _ causes child labour to still exist today? A: demands.\n__ was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? A: Shinzo Abe.\n__ is responsible for judicial review. A: Courts.\nThe French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism.\nThe symbol for mercuric oxide is _. A: HgO.\nThe Yuan discouraged _ to support Buddhism. A: Taoism.
PaLM 8BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nKing _ and former Huguenot looked out for the welfare of the group. A: Henry IV.\nThe principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution. A: Charles Darwin.\n__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels? A: Siegfried.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: The Atlantic Ocean.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\n__ was the US Secretary of State in 2001. A: Colin Bowell.\nThe principle of faunal succession was developed 100 years before _ 's theory of evolution? A: Charles Darwin.\n__ is the hero who killed a dragon on the Drachenfels. A: Siegfried.\nThe European Anti-Fraud Office investigate John Dalli in year_. A: 2012.\nThe French spread along with their imperialism the _ religion. A: Catholicism.\nCosta v ENEL happend in year_. A: 1964.
PaLM 62BOnly answer the questions you know the answer to:\nThe Hudson River terminate into _. A: New York Bay.\nThe county of Hampshire was officially named in _. A: ?\n__ said "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". A: Immanuel Kant.\n__ formally adds inverses to elements to any monoid. A: ?\nThe Parental Leave directive created in year_. A: 1996.\nThere are __ megaregions in the United States. A: 11.\nD'Olier Street is located in_. A: Dublin.\nThe speed limit was set to _ to reduce consumption. A: 55 mph.\n__ channel replaced Sky Travel. A: Sky Three.\n__ founded McKinsey & Company. A: James O. McKinsey.
", + "image_path": "44beca66f467d7aba510c55648622b10365229fdf23d88e9d4baae684adc20ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 597, + 457, + 740 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 525, + 589 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 525, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 525, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 597, + 457, + 740 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 597, + 457, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 597, + 457, + 740 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMultiple Choice QA Knowledge Probe Prompts
PaLM 62BQuestion: Into what body of water does the Hudson River terminate? (A) The great lakes (B) Amazon river (C) The red sea (D) the Atlantic Ocean (E) San Francisco bay (F) The north sea (G) Indian Ocean (H) Lake Mississippi -Answer: (D) the Atlantic Ocean. \nQuestion: Who was the prime minister of Japan in 2015? (A) Donald Trump (B) Miho Nonaka (C) Andrew Yang (D) a France citizen (E) a political outsider (F) Shinzo Abe (G) woman (H) Zoe. -Answer: (F) Shinzo Abe. Question: what increases moisture? (A) density (B) the sun (C) wind (D) droughts (E) Honey (F) 17 (G) rain (H) meat -Answer: (G) rain. \nQuestion: What can be found inside a cell? (A) soil (B) dogs (C) ovum (D) starfish (E) Most plants (F) RNA (G) washer (H) abundant -Answer: (F) RNA. \nQuestion: What kind of coloring do chromoplasts make? (A) fat (B) move (C) RNA (D) grow (E) red (F) skin (G) eyes (H) DNA -Answer: (E) red.
", + "image_path": "36dd1a77b3fa924d3f769dcfce302e141016fe41a171d79ce3340dc3d7c5b5bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 525, + 772 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Knowledge probing prompts for Cloze style QA datasets. These prompts are used to probe the pretrained model's answer to questions in TReX." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1788" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 499, + 269 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 499, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 499, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 499, + 269 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
QuestionIn which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance?
Original answerHungary
Counterfactual answerRussia
Original contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Hungary.
Counterfactual contextOn 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries meeting in Russia.
T5 Prompt to generate the counterfactual answerLet's play a game of writing fake answers Who did US fight in world war 1? Real answer: Germany. Fake answer: Somalia. Who is the CEO of Amazon? Real Answer: Jeff Bezos. Fake Answer: Richard D. Fairbank. ...7 more examples ... In which country did Warsaw Pact officials meet to dissolve the alliance? Real answer: Hungary. Fake answer: <extra_id_0>.
", + "image_path": "07bb809c4656c560af0f9a4d75636af99ffb4a6e54492b975906a019855aee50.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 525, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 525, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: An example from the counterfactual split of the KAFT training set. We take an original question, answer, and context triple. We then use a few examples to prompt a pretrained T5 XXL model to generate a plausible counterfactual answer. Finally, we replace all occurrences of the original answer with the counterfactual answer to build the counterfactual context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 337, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 337, + 291, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 337, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Truncation: We truncate the model's output on special tokens such as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 337, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 337, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " extra_id_1 >, punctuation, line change symbols and question/context initialization symbols such as \"Q:\", \"Question:\", \" CONTEXT:\", These symbols are a frequent in the pretrained model's responds to our QA style knowledge probe prompts and indicate that the model is ready to move on to the next question that is unrelated to the answer of the current question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 478, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 478, + 291, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 478, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Abstain: We normalize all abstain symbols. Whenever the model indicate abstaining using either \"I don't know\", \"unsure\" or \"?\" in the output as responses to our prompt, we record \"unsure\" as its answer when constructing the label in the irrelevant slices of KAFT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 567, + 210, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 567, + 210, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 567, + 210, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.7 Dataset and task details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 291, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KAFT mixes together a number of datasets, each with multiple augmentation slices. During training, data from these difference sources are sampled in a round-robin style according to predefined mixture weights. We list these weights as well as the corresponding dataset stats as in Table 11. The sampling ratio from each slice is computed using a product of the normalized dataset level rate and the normalized slice level rate as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 712, + 290, + 739 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 712, + 290, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 712, + 290, + 739 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "R (d, s) = \\frac {r _ {d}}{\\sum_ {d ^ {\\prime}} r _ {d ^ {\\prime}}} \\frac {r _ {d s}}{\\sum_ {s ^ {\\prime}} r _ {d s ^ {\\prime}}} \\tag {11}", + "image_path": "0c4c52eb76ae45b6a52fed592c8f7b377f8a08fa56bce559b3f0c154bb93f5ae.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d, d'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote different datasets and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s, s'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote difference slices within each dataset. For ex" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ample, the sampling ratio from the QASC relevant slice is given by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 375, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 375, + 524, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 375, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} R (Q A S C, r e l e v a n t) \\\\ = \\frac {0 . 3}{1 . 3 + 0 . 3 + 0 . 1 + 0 . 2} \\frac {0 . 5}{0 . 5 + 0 . 2 5 + 0 . 0 2} \\\\ = 0. 0 8 3 1 \\tag {12} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "aad5a7eac43931c1f738451e1daa70c84dc180cffbaade26ffdf9ad89b276160.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 526, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The KAFT-TriviaQA training set contains 45593 relevant examples and 72697 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-QASC training set contains 8134 relevant examples and the same number of irrelevant examples. The KAFT-SQuAD2 dataset contains 78125 relevant examples and 117287 irrelevant examples. The KAFT-TReX training set contains 75365 relevant examples and 47503 irrelevant examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 579, + 483, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 579, + 483, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 579, + 483, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.8 Licensing and scientific artifacts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 525, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we used the following scientific artifacts: TriviaQA is licensed under Apache License 2.0. The SQuAD 2.0 dataset is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. T-REx is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. QASC is under CC BY license. T5 models are under Apache License 2.0. Unified QA models are under Apache License 2.0. The PaLM models are proprietary. All these artifacts are properly cited when we mention them the first time. Our use for these artifacts are consistent with their licenses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We create the following scientific artifacts and we will partly release them after this paper is pub" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1789" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 216, + 439, + 538 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 216, + 439, + 538 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 216, + 439, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 216, + 439, + 538 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
datasetdataset weightsliceslice weight
SQuAD 2.01.3relevant0.8
counterfactual0.1
original irrelevant abstain0.1
original irrelevant other0.1
empty correct0.33
empty abstain0.02
empty other0.05
sampled irrelevant correct0.33
sampled irrelevant abstain0.02
sampled irrelevant other0.03
QASC0.3relevant0.5
irrelevant correct0.25
irrelevant other0.02
TReX0.1relevant0.4
counterfactual0.4
2-hop relevant6
irrelevant correct0.15
irrelevant abstain0.03
irrelevant other0.03
TriviaQA0.2relevant0.8
counterfactual0.15
irrelevant/empty correct0.5
irrelevant/empty other0.2
", + "image_path": "426e7df952204ea06aa8ed1ce66fdca7b26b20e48cc3a0fa50e15e5893abd445.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 526, + 631 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 526, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 526, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Task mixture weights. During finetuning, training data from each split is computed in a round robin fashion according to these weights. The sampling rate from each slice is computed with these weights using in Eq. 12. Here \"relevant\", \"irrelevant\", \"empty\" indicates the relevance (or absence) of the context relative to the question, and \"counterfactual\" indicates counterfactual context constructed using answer replacement. The additional specification for irrelevant/empty slices, \"correct\", \"abstain\", and \"other\" indicate the pretrained model's answers' type and quality relative to the ground truth. For TReX, we have a special slice called \"2-hop relevant\". These are relevant contexts contracted using 2-hop reasoning over the triplet structure of TReX." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1790" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lished: The KAFT finetuning method will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-T5 models will be released under Apache License 2.0. The KAFT-PaLM models will be proprietary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1791" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 414, + 242 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? section 7" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract and section 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 131, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 131, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 131, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 1-5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 1-5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A.8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Appendix A.8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? We use well established public datasets that are constructed based on publicly available information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sec 1-5, Appendix A.8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 114, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 114, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 114, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sec 3-4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Sec 1-4, Sec 7, Appendix A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1792" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 236 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 4, Appendix A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Jax" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1793" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_content_list.json b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7ed69afe747e8c6c9527c5ea85d33ea77710311 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2416 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 213, + 79, + 781, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Olga Tsymboloi $^{1,2}$ , Danil Malaev $^{1}$ , Andrei Petrovskii $^{1}$ , and Ivan Oseledets $^{3,4}$", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 105, + 818, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ Sber AI Lab, Moscow, Russia", + "bbox": [ + 374, + 135, + 628, + 151 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia", + "bbox": [ + 242, + 152, + 757, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia", + "bbox": [ + 238, + 168, + 761, + 185 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (AIRI), Moscow, Russia", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 185, + 768, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tsimboy.oa@phystech.edu, m9255171362@gmail.com, andreypetrovskij@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 203, + 877, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "i. oseledets@skoltech.ru", + "bbox": [ + 386, + 219, + 620, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we examine the vulnerability of language models to universal adversarial triggers (UATs). We propose a new white-box approach to the construction of layerwise UATs (LUATs), which searches the triggers by perturbing hidden layers of a network. On the example of three transformer models and three datasets from the GLUE benchmark, we demonstrate that our method provides better transferability in a model-to-model setting with an average gain of $9.3\\%$ in the fooling rate over the baseline. Moreover, we investigate triggers transferability in the task-to-task setting. Using small subsets from the datasets similar to the target tasks for choosing a perturbed layer, we show that LUATs are more efficient than vanilla UATs by $7.1\\%$ in the fooling rate.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 537, + 260, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One of the fundamental drawbacks of modern neural networks is their vulnerability to adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2014), imperceptible perturbations to the data samples that leave the ground truth label unchanged but are able to modify model prediction drastically. The samples obtained as the result of these perturbations are called adversarial examples. First discovered for image datasets (Szegedy et al., 2013), this phenomenon was then demonstrated for other types of data, including natural language (Papernot et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The originally proposed methods of adversarial attack construction were sample-dependent, which means that one can not apply the same perturbation to different dataset items and expect equal success. Sample-agnostic, or in other words, universal, adversarial perturbations (UAPs) were proposed in Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017), where based on a small subset of image data, the authors constructed perturbations leading to prediction change of $80 - 90\\%$ (depending on the model) of samples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "They also showed that UAPs discovered on one model could successfully fool another.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 880, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The generalization of the universal attacks to natural language data was made by Wallace et al. (2019). Short additives (triggers) were inserted at the beginning of data samples, and then a search over the token space, in order to maximize the probability of the negative class on the chosen data subset, was performed. The found triggers turned out to be very efficient at fooling the model, repeating the success of UAPs proposed for images.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 287, + 884, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The conventional way to look for adversarial examples is to perturb the output of a model. Considering image classification neural networks, Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018) proposed to search for perturbations to hidden layers by approximating the so-called $(p,q)$ -singular vectors (Boyd, 1974) of the corresponding Jacobian matrix. Then one can hope that the error will propagate through the whole network end, resulting in model prediction change. They showed that this approach allows obtaining a high fooling rate based on significantly smaller data subsets than those leveraged by Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 434, + 884, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we aim to continue the investigation of neural networks' vulnerability to universal adversarial attacks in the case of natural language data. Inspired by the approach considered by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), we look for the perturbations to hidden layers of a model instead of the loss function. In order to avoid projection from embedding to discrete space, we use simplex parametrization of the search space (see, e.g. (Dong et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021)). We formulate the corresponding optimization problem and propose the algorithm for obtaining its approximate solution. On the example of three transformer models: BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), ALBERT (Lan et al., 2020) and three GLUE datasets (Wang et al., 2018) we demonstrate higher efficiency of our method over the original approach", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "129", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 129-143", + "bbox": [ + 235, + 945, + 759, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d62d146b3bef1502212e40b65ce8e37fb12a27de3f34821f6864c07ec980367d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: LUATs (ours): Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers. The algorithm scheme, where $\\nabla F_l$ is defined in (8)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 84, + 868, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of Wallace et al. (2019) in the setting of model-to-model and task-to-task transfer. We also show that in the case of direct attack application, our method demonstrates the results which are on par with the baseline, where perturbation of the loss function was realized. We hope that this technique will serve as a useful tool for discovering flaws and deepening our understanding of language neural networks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 249, + 485, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Framework", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 412, + 250, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let $f: \\mathcal{X} \\to \\mathcal{Y}$ be a text classification model defined for a dataset $\\mathcal{D} = \\{x_i, y_i\\}_{i=1}^N$ , where $x_i$ is an input and $y_i$ is a corresponding label. Our goal is to find a small perturbation to the original input sequences that leads to a change in a model prediction for the maximum possible number of samples. Such perturbation could be modelled as an insertion of a trigger, a token sequence $t$ of small length $L$ , into a particular part of an input. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we call such text perturbations universal adversarial triggers (UATs). In this paper, we focus on triggers concatenated to the front of a sentence and denote a corrupted sample as $\\hat{x} = t \\oplus x$ . It is also important to note that, in contrast to Wallace et al. (2019), we consider the unsupervised scenario when an attacker does not have access to the labels. For evaluation we follow Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017) and use the fooling rate (FR):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 442, + 487, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nF R = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {\\hat {x} = t \\oplus x, x \\in \\mathcal {D}} [ f (x) \\neq f (\\hat {x}) ]. \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 764, + 485, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Universal adversarial triggers. Before we dive into the description of our approach, it is worth depicting the original method of UATs. Restricting themselves to the white-box setting, Wallace et al. (2019) showed that an efficient way to find UATs could be performed through the optimization of the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "first-order expected loss approximation:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 249, + 806, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\max _ {t \\in \\mathcal {V} ^ {L}} \\mathbb {E} _ {x, y \\sim \\mu} \\langle \\nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} (t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y), t - t ^ {n} \\rangle , \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 547, + 277, + 882, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mu$ is a distribution of input data, $t^n$ denotes the trigger found after the $n$ -th iteration, $\\mathcal{V}$ stands for the token vocabulary and the initial trigger $t^0$ can be chosen as the $L$ -time repetition of the word \"the\". For simplicity, here (and below in similar situations), by $t$ , we mean its embedding if the gradient is taken with respect to it or if it appears as a term in a scalar product.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 312, + 882, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to find the optimal perturbation within each iteration, the expectation in (2) is relaxed with the average over a batch, and maximization is performed for each trigger token independently:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 441, + 882, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\max _ {t _ {j} \\in \\mathcal {V}} \\sum_ {x, y \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\left\\langle \\nabla_ {t _ {j} ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y\\right), t _ {j} - t _ {j} ^ {n} \\right\\rangle , \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 531, + 882, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $j$ is the token index. After solving (3), the next trigger $t^{n + 1}$ is selected via beam search over all the token positions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 575, + 882, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach: layerwise universal adversarial triggers (LUATs). In (3), we face the optimization problem over a discrete set of tokens from the vocabulary $\\mathcal{V}$ . To overcome this issue, let us relax (3) using the probability simplex model for every token. In this case, a trigger can be represented as $t = WV$ , where $V$ is a vocabulary matrix and $W_{mn}$ is a probability of the $n$ -th token from vocabulary to be selected at position $m$ . Then (3) can be rewritten as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 624, + 884, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\sum_ {x, y \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\left\\langle \\nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y\\right), W V - t ^ {n} \\right\\rangle , \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 791, + 882, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathcal{S} = \\{W|W1 = 1,W\\geq 0\\}$ and $W\\geq 0$ denotes an element-wise inequality. In this formulation, the search for the solution is done by performing optimization of the weights $W$ over the simplex $\\mathcal{S}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "130", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach can be seen as an extension of (4) to the perturbation of hidden layers. This is inspired by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), who applied this idea to find UAPs for fooling image classification neural networks. Given a layer $l$ , the optimization problem, in this case, can be similarly obtained via the Taylor expansion:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} l (\\hat {x}) - l (\\hat {x} ^ {n}) \\approx J _ {l} (\\hat {x} ^ {n}) (\\hat {x} - \\hat {x} ^ {n}) \\\\ \\left\\| l (\\hat {x}) - l \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right)\\right\\| _ {q} ^ {q} \\rightarrow \\max _ {t \\in \\mathcal {V} ^ {L}}, \\tag {5} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 210, + 485, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\hat{x}^n = t^n\\oplus x$ $q$ is a hyperparameter to be fine-tuned and $J_{l}(x)$ is the Jacobian operator corresponding to a layer $l$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 266, + 489, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nJ _ {l} (x) = \\frac {\\partial l (x)}{\\partial x}. \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 240, + 325, + 487, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bringing (4) and (5) together we obtain", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 368, + 410, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\max_{W\\in \\mathcal{S}}F_{l}(W) = \\\\ \\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\sum_ {x \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\| J _ {l} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x\\right) \\left(W V - t ^ {n}\\right) \\| _ {q} ^ {q}. \\tag {7} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 395, + 485, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast to (3), finding the optimal solution of (7) is computationally infeasible. Indeed, the problem (3) allows a brute-force approach for finding the optimal token for each trigger position since it requires computing the gradient only once for each iteration. On the other hand, in our case, a brute-force computation is very cumbersome since, for each iteration, it would require computing the Jacobian action for every batch, token candidate and position, resulting in $\\mathcal{O}(LB|\\mathcal{V}|)$ forward-backward passes, where $B$ is the number of batches in an iteration. Luckily, $F_{l}(W)$ is convex and can be lower bounded via a tangent line, where the gradient is calculated as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 467, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\nabla F _ {l} (W) = \\\\ \\sum_ {x \\in \\text {b a t c h}} J _ {l} ^ {\\top} \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right) \\psi_ {q} \\left(J _ {l} \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right) \\left(W V - t ^ {n}\\right)\\right) V ^ {\\top}, \\tag {8} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 706, + 485, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\psi_q(x) = \\mathrm{sign}(x)|x|^{q - 1}$ . Therefore, our task is reduced to finding the solution to the linear problem with the simplicial constraint:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 772, + 487, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\max _ {W \\in S} \\left\\langle \\nabla F _ {l} \\left(W ^ {*}\\right), W \\right\\rangle , \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 834, + 487, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\nabla F_l(W)$ is given by (8) and $W^{*}$ denotes the point where we perform the linear approximation. The final problem (9) has a closed-form solution", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(see the Appendix A for more details) and, as a result, we reduced the number of forward-backward computations to $\\mathcal{O}(B)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Concerning the initialization of $W^{*}$ , we take the uniform distribution over all the vocabulary tokens for each token position in a trigger. Within each iteration, we perform only one step with respect to $W$ in order to reduce computation time and observe that it is sufficient for breaking the models efficiently.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 131, + 882, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, since the found after a given iteration weight matrix $W$ in the worst case has only one non-zero element per row (see Appendix A), we can get into a local maximum unless we guess the proper initialization. Therefore, similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), we perform a beam search over the top- $k$ candidates. In order to realize it, it is necessary to define the ranking criterion for choosing the best option at each search step. For this purpose, we use the FR. The overall algorithm is presented in Algorithm 1 and Fig. 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 884, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1: LUATs: Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 437, + 835, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Dataset $\\mathcal{D}$ ,victim model,tokenizer, $q$ layer to attack $l$ trigger length $L$ top- $k$ ,beam size $b$", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 470, + 850, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Trigger $t$", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 519, + 668, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1 $t =$ tokenizer( the...the) L times", + "2 $W = \\frac{1}{|\\mathcal{V}|}\\mathrm{ones}(L,|\\mathcal{V}|)$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 535, + 717, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 while FR increase do", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 586, + 690, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "4 Sample batch $X$", + "5 Compute $\\nabla F_{l}(W)$ over batch", + "6 candidates $=$ Select indices of $k$ largest entries of $\\nabla F_l(W)$ for each token position", + "7 $\\begin{array}{r}t = \\mathrm{BeamSearch}(\\mathcal{D},\\mathrm{candidates},b)\\mathrm{to}\\\\ \\mathrm{maximize~FR} \\end{array}$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 601, + 843, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 747, + 655, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present a numerical study of the proposed layerwise adversarial attack framework on text classification datasets. The code is publicly available on GitHub1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 771, + 882, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 845, + 601, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets. As in the work of Wang et al. (2021), we consider only a subset of tasks from the GLUE", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 882, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ https://github.com/sb-ai-lab/nlp-layerwise-fooler", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 835, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "131", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "benchmark. In particular, we use SST-2 for the sentiment classification, MNLI (matched), QNLI, RTE for the natural language inference and MRPC as the paraphrase identification. We exclude CoLA, which task is to define whether the input is grammatically correct or not, and universal triggers are highly probable to change most of the ground-truth positive labels to negative. Finally, WNLI is not considered because it contains too few examples. We conduct our experiments using the validation set for attack fitting and the test set for evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models. We focus our consideration on three transformer models: BERT base, RoBERTa base and ALBERT base using the pre-trained weights from the TextAttack project (Morris et al., 2020) for most of the model-dataset cases. For some of them, the performance was unsatisfactory (all the models on MNLI, ALBERT on QNLI, RoBERTa on SST-2, RTE), and we fine-tuned them on the corresponding training sets (Mosin et al., 2023). To train our attack, we use existing GLUE datasets splits. The detailed statistics is presented in Tab. 1", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 265, + 489, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hyperparameters. In our experiments, we investigate the attack performance depending on the dataset, model, layer $l$ (from 0 to 11), trigger length $L \\in \\{1,2,3,4,5,6\\}$ and $q \\in \\{2,3,4,5,7,10\\}$ . For each dataset, model and trigger length, we performed a grid search over $l$ and $q$ . The other parameters, such as top- $k$ and the beam size, remain fixed to the values obtained from the corresponding ablation study. In all experiments, we use a batch size of 128. Finally, we define the initialization of $W$ as the uniform distribution over the vocabulary tokens for each position in a trigger (see Algorithm 1).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 445, + 489, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Token filtration and resegmentation. Transformers' vocabulary contains items such as symbols, special tokens and unused words, which are easily detected during the inference. To increase triggers' imperceptibility, we exclude them from the vocabulary matrix during optimization leaving only those which contain english letters or numbers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 489, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another problem appears since a lot of tokens do not correspond to complete words but rather pieces of words (sub-words). As a result, if the first found token corresponds to a sub-word, one encounters the retokenization, meaning that, after converting the found trigger to string and back, the set of the tokens can change. Moreover, sometimes one has to deal with appearing symbols such as \"##\" in a trigger. In this case, we drop all the extra", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "symbols and perform the retokenization. Luckily, it does not result in severe performance degradation. In the case when, due to the resegmentation, the length of a trigger changes, we report the result as for the length for which the attack training was performed. As an alternative to direct resegmentation, we tried to transform triggers by passing them through an MLM model, but this approach led to a more significant drop in performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 247, + 660, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with the baseline. We perform a comparison of LUATs with untargeted UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). In order to stay in the unsupervised setting, we modify their approach by replacing the ground truth labels in the cross-entropy loss function with the class probabilities. As a result, we search for a trigger that maximizes the distance between model output distributions before and after the perturbation. In addition, as the criterion for choosing the best alternative in the beam search, we use FR for both methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 271, + 884, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform the ablation study to estimate the dependence of FR on top- $k$ and the beam size. For the beam size 1, we measure both attacks' performance for different values of top- $k$ from 1 to 40. Then for the best top- $k$ , we build the dependence on the beam size from 1 to 5. We perform this study on the QNLI dataset. The results are presented in the Fig. 5. We stick to the top- $k$ 10 and the beam size 1 as a trade-off between high performance and low computational complexity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 450, + 884, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The grid search results are presented in Tab. 2, where for each model, dataset, and trigger length, we show the best results of both approaches. We performed the computation on four GPU's NVIDIA A100 of 80GB. To reduce the influence hyperparameters searching space cardinality (72 times more runs due to different values of $q$ and $L$ ), in Fig. 2, we present a time, averaged over 10 batches, per one iteration of both approaches. Indeed, for LUATs, we observe linear dependence on a layer, particularly 7.27 seconds on average versus 8.05 seconds for UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). The triggers obtained with the method of Wallace et al. (2019) took only 5 GPU hours; hence the execution time of the full grid search for LUATs could be estimated by 325 GPU hours. While the proposed method might be more efficient on average, high variance is explained by significantly different paddings in sampled batches.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "132", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2bcb19ec89229d9d99731189e10b15b3de31bcfa9cbfce2b29634ac2994cf7b6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetValidationTest# ClassesBERT\nAcc. Val. / TestRoBERTa\nAcc. Val. / TestALBERT\nAcc. Val. / Test
MRPC4081725287.7/84.490.4/87.289.7/86.0
QNLI54635463291.5/90.791.8/91.890.6/90.8
MNLI98159796384.2/83.786.5/86.383.8/83.5
SST-28721821292.4/93.394.0/94.992.7/91.7
RTE2773000272.6/67.680.5/74.076.0/72.2
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 80, + 845, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Statistics of the considered classification datasets. We present datasets cardinality, the number of classes and model accuracy on both validation and test sets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 199, + 882, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0f92b1634bba732db34333fe2ccb6a0cb3cbff430f2fb7ab1a8e74c9a5f5f802.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The iteration average time for UAT and LUAT (ours) approaches. The results presented on the QNLI dataset with fixed $q = 10$ , $L = 3$ and a batch size of 128. Since, for the case of LUATs, the standard deviation does not change significantly, we report the value averaged over layers as $\\overline{std}_{LUAT}$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 152, + 256, + 450, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is interesting to note that in some cases, shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Appendix A, Tab. 10). That is why we present the best performance for each length $L$ over all the lengths less or equal to $L$ . From Tab. 2, one can see that our method demonstrates the results, which are on par with Wallace et al. (2019). In Fig. 3, we present the dependence of FR on the trigger length $L$ . The attack performance saturates when it approaches 5 or 6, meaning that considering longer triggers would hardly bring any performance gain.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 552, + 485, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wallace et al. (2019) suggested that the efficiency of universal adversarial triggers can be explained by the existence of dataset biases, such as fallacious correlations between certain words and classes and supported this conjecture by computing pointwise mutual information (PMI) of vocabulary tokens and dataset classes", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 728, + 485, + 840 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathrm {P M I} (t o k e n, c l a s s) = \\log {\\frac {p (t o k e n , c l a s s)}{p (t o k e n) p (c l a s s)}}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 847, + 468, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As a result, they reported a high PMI rank for their tiggers tokens. In order to verify whether LUATs", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "satisfy the same pattern, we perform this computation for our best triggers. We sample 5 best candidates obtained during the grid search for each trigger length and compute PMI rank with add-100 smoothing for their tokens. The results on $\\mathrm{QNLI}^2$ (see the Tab. 3) demonstrate that similarly to UATs our trigger tokens have high PMI ranks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 255, + 882, + 366 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dependence on $q$ and a layer. For the investigation of dependence on $q$ and a layer, we restrict ourselves to the datasets which appear to be the most vulnerable in our experiments: MRPC, QNLI and SST. The results are presented in Fig. 4, where we performed averaging over the lengths. One can conclude that, in general, it is more efficient to attack the higher layers. This observation can be interpreted with the idea which has been mentioned above; namely, that the efficiency of the triggers is caused by the existence of dataset biases. Indeed, as Merchant et al. (2020) demonstrated, fine-tuning for a downstream task primarily affects the higher layers of a model. Therefore, the bias which could be acquired due to fine-tuning should be accumulated in its higher layers. Since we try to fool a model with respect to a downstream task, the appearance of the higher layers among the most successful ones is more probable. Finally, it is interesting to note that the dependence on $q$ also demonstrates better results for the larger values, which is in accordance with the findings of Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 882, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transferability: model-to-model. It was demonstrated that the universal triggers could be transferable between different models trained on the same task (Wallace et al., 2019). Here, we perform a comparison of their approach and ours with respect to this property. Similarly to the above consideration, the computations are carried out on MRPC, QNLI and SST-2 datasets, with an additional restriction on the trigger length $L = 3$ , which", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 738, + 880, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2The results on SST-2 and MRPC are presented in the Appendix B on the Tab. 6 and 7", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "133", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e963d82eb662da8ca60f84a28690da933bade13747dc5af8817f192a3e00ac31.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelDatasetFR@1FR@2FR@3FR@4FR@5FR@6
WSWSWSWSWSWS
ALBERTMNLI18.514.825.817.025.818.534.821.134.824.834.824.8
MRPC11.44.527.628.947.954.866.664.166.667.067.667.6
QNLI26.437.547.548.150.550.850.551.552.252.452.552.4
RTE4.84.96.311.97.911.99.117.79.117.79.117.7
SST-221.029.734.838.845.546.447.948.550.648.750.648.7
BERTMNLI32.010.238.433.638.434.538.434.738.435.638.435.6
MRPC15.49.364.656.670.669.070.770.470.870.670.870.7
QNLI26.223.242.637.947.242.350.649.150.650.850.850.8
RTE4.74.26.66.77.18.57.610.27.610.211.210.2
SST-229.727.042.138.042.144.642.148.250.649.050.849
RoBERTaMNLI4.88.24.922.333.028.833.030.033.033.133.033.1
MRPC4.24.935.526.367.868.569.469.369.469.369.569.3
QNLI14.713.332.639.041.544.944.547.348.147.748.148.3
RTE3.16.36.113.66.113.68.013.68.016.39.216.3
SST-228.426.934.738.743.945.949.947.149.950.749.953.1
Average-16.315.030.030.538.438.941.541.542.742.943.143.2
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 87, + 850, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/340426ae5d70a0a5c4de9b2f233e55bdc87638c29a2440e2c6b34db42d1c26dd.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Comparison between LUAT (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report the best FR on the test sets for triggers whose length does not exceed $L$ (FR@L)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
EBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank NRankERank NRankERank N
emperor94.69either99.6070%98.95those99.02
berlin93.72legislation97.6010%96.10amount98.59
whose92.14can97.083,50093.82unless93.46
russian90.91ter95.3718%93.727192.72
cardinal90.25latitude93.8120%93.45nor92.46
orient89.83dalai92.04whose91.79where91.30
german89.03samurai90.5211%88.79besides90.62
korean87.77granting90.2454%88.34correlation88.56
fide84.10reich90.10supplemented86.34holds87.90
atop82.91banning88.4750%85.46waived87.12
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 420, + 873, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cafdaeb26af8dfc53c5e039eaf72589ab109cb5f809738bd892c76101d56dacc.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: PMI for the joint training and validation set of QNLI, E - Entailment, N - Not entailment" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
From/ToMRPC, W/SQNLI, W/SSST-2, W/S
ALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTa
ALBERT-22.8/53.533.9/69.1-45.6/36.139.0/38.1-30.6/37.524.2/34.7
BERT6.7/17.2-60.5/67.834.6/36.3-22.0/36.031.0/29.3-17.7/24.1
RoBERTa15.3/32.155.5/64.6-20.4/40.418.0/35.9-34.1/26.236.9/37.7-
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 642, + 873, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/63fcac3cf3ed8af71e62fdf04cfb65c2f706d85bd2b05827d638c3ad3391eca5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different models trained on a fixed dataset for the trigger length $L = 3$ ." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
From/ToALBERT, W/SBERT, W/SRoBERTa, W/S
MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2
MRPC-9.5/21.95.4/32.5-18.3/17.611.8/9.4-31.4/25.65.3/6.0
QNLI13.6/14.0-9.0/31.732.9/35.5-2.8/4.722.7/40.9-2.9/8.9
SST-28.6/22.831.3/36.0-29.7/64.827.5/21.2-18.1/13.914.0/15.9-
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 785, + 848, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different datasets for a fixed model and the trigger length $L = 3$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 878, + 882, + 907 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "134", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8741eff88e760edfad7e356bb5fce19266c53c5a2f812e1d6424fdff66a005b4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) SST." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 82, + 364, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/523584a8d66fc2490327651b6a7455450b9b1b6eaba111ffa7c873c5445c2aa7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) MRPC." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 376, + 82, + 620, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/adebae7476479311c8566ab6778d9b0217ead495926e60619e7e2d7b77b53cab.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c)QNLI." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 636, + 82, + 880, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/21d7690d8aae7e6ab04765aa41d0ab15081ba233933ed051f13e82866ae242de.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: FR for optimal $q$ depending on the trigger length for the most vulnerable sets. The plots show FR saturation which is achieved for short enough triggers." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 290, + 354, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4e242ee946e6802a8b85f3ffca244892a7a5437c2e05d75b58cf0aa3cfb8aeb5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: FR dependence on LUATs hyperperameters. The efficiency of our attack increases with $q$ and the layer number." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 386, + 290, + 613, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b0ad7284148be2d5b378935b5df7ce1a96ba07828382af9bdbec048eef0c1902.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 645, + 290, + 873, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is done for simplicity. In this setting, we suppose that an attacker has access to the data and also to the input and output of an attacked model. When transferring the UATs, the best trigger obtained with a source model is taken and then applied directly to a target model on a test set. For LUATs, however, one can come up with a better way. Since a target model is different from a source one, it is not necessary that the same values of $q$ and $l$ would provide the best pick for the transfer. Therefore, since an attacker has access to the forward pass of a target model, we evaluate with it the fooling rate of the best triggers found for each value of $q$ and $l$ on a validation set and then apply the best option to a test set to get the final score. For simplicity, we fix $q = 10$ , which according to the Fig. 4, is the best alternative on average. The final results are presented in the Tab. 4. One can see that in most cases, we outperform the UATs with an average gain of $9.3\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 504, + 489, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transferability: task-to-task. The fact that the universal triggers can generalize to other models trained on the same task seems natural since, in this case, it is highly probable that a source and a target model would acquire the same biases. A", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "more complicated situation is when one tries to transfer triggers between different tasks. In this setting, an attacker looks for more fundamental task-independent flaws of a model, which can be explained, e.g., by a bias appearing during the pretraining phase. In order to examine this capacity of the triggers, we perform their transferring between different datasets for each of the considered models. For measuring the performance of the UATs, as in the previous case, the best trigger obtained on a source task is transferred. On the other hand, for the layerwise approach, one, under a reasonable assumption, can still suggest a natural way to choose the most appropriate for transfer trigger among the best triggers corresponding to different values of $q$ and $l$ . Namely, we suppose that although attackers do not have access to data on which a target model was trained, they know a task for which it was trained. It means that they know whether it is sentiment classification, paraphrase identification, etc. (Savchenko et al., 2020). If this is the case, they can generate data corresponding to the task of interest. In order to mimic such a situation, for each of the datasets (SST-2, MRPC, QNLI), we select an auxiliary dataset collected for the same task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 504, + 884, + 906 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "135", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The map is the following: SST-2 - IMDb (Maas et al., 2011), MRPC - PAWS (Zhang et al., 2019), QNLI - WikiQA (Yang et al., 2015). We sample subsets of sizes 64, 128, and 256 from the auxiliary datasets and consider them as the data generated by an attacker. Again, fixing $q = 10$ for simplicity, we evaluate the best trigger obtained for each layer on a corresponding auxiliary subset, performing inference on a target model. Herewith, each subset is sampled five times, and we report the average score for the size of 256, which appears to be the best option. The final results for both approaches are shown in the Tab. 5. Our approach demonstrates the average improvement of $7.1\\%$ in fooling rate over the vanilla UATs. The reason for that might be related to the fact that if this kind of triggers (task-independent) is indeed related to the pretraining phase, in order to find them, one instead should perturb the lower or middle layers since the higher layers' weights can change a lot after fine-tuning. The LUATs which appear to be most successful at transferring are presented in the Tab. 8 and 9 of the Appendix B for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers correspondingly.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 489, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 486, + 267, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are already quite a few works devoted to the universal attack on NLP models in the literature. We briefly discuss them here.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 514, + 485, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ribeiro et al. (2018) proposed a sample-agnostic approach to generate adversarial examples in the case of NLP models by applying a semantics-preserving set of rules consisting of specific word substitutions. However, found rules were not completely universal, resulting in model prediction change only for $1\\% - 4\\%$ out of targeted samples.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 563, + 485, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), the realization of text adversarial attacks as short insertions to the input were proposed by Behjati et al. (2019). Though, they did not perform the search over the whole vocabulary for each word position in the trigger but instead exploited cosine-similarity projected gradient descent, which does not appear that efficient in the sense of attack performance.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 677, + 485, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adversarial triggers generated by the method proposed by Wallace et al. (2019) in general turned out to be semantically meaningless, which makes them easier to detect by defence systems. An attempt to make triggers more natural was undertaken by Song et al. (2021). Leveraging an adversarially regularized autoencoder (Zhao et al., 2018)", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 806, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to generate the triggers, they managed to improve their semantic meaning without significantly decreasing the attack efficiency.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 85, + 880, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another interesting direction is to minimize the amount of data needed for finding UAPs. Singla et al. (2022) created representatives of each class by minimizing the loss function linear approximation over the text sequences of a certain size. Afterwards, adversarial triggers were appended to these class representatives and the rest of the procedure followed Wallace et al. (2019). Although no data was used explicitly for training the attack, this approach demonstrated solid performance on considered datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 133, + 880, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 323, + 638, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a new layerwise framework for the construction of universal adversarial attacks on NLP models. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we look for them in the form of triggers; however, in order to find the best attack, we do not perturb the loss function but neural network intermediate layers. We show that our approach demonstrates better performance when the triggers are transferred to different models and tasks. The latter might be related to the fact that in order to be transferred successfully between different datasets, a trigger should reflect network flaws that are task-independent. In this case, reducing the attack search to perturbation of the lower or middle layers might be more beneficial since the higher layers are highly influenced by fine-tuning. We hope this method will serve as a good tool for investigating the shortcomings of language models and improving our understanding of neural networks' intrinsic mechanisms.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 349, + 880, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to conclude by discussing the potential risks. As any type of technology, machine learning methods can be used for good and evil. In particular, adversarial attacks can be used for misleading released machine learning models. Nevertheless, we think that revealing the weaknesses of modern neural networks is very important for making them more secure in the future and also for being able to make conscious decisions when deploying them.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 655, + 880, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Limitations and future work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 829, + 786, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach to universal text perturbations suffers from linguistic inconsistency, which makes them easier to detect. Therefore, as the next step of our research, it would be interesting to investigate", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 854, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "136", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the possibility of improving the naturalness of adversarial triggers without degradation of the attack performance in terms of the fooling rate.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While the proposed approach outperforms the UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) in the transferability task, we should highlight that the additional hyperparameters adjustment plays a crucial role, and one could suggest validation procedure refinement for a more fair comparison. Also, for both direct and transferability settings, a more comprehensive range of models should be examined, including recurrent (Yuan et al., 2021) and transformer architectures, e.g., T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), XLNet (Yang et al., 2019), GPT family models (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 133, + 489, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another direction of improvement is related to the fact that sometimes the found triggers can change the ground truth label of samples they are concatenated to if, e.g., they contain words contradicting the true sense of a sentence. It would be interesting to analyze how often this happens and develop an approach to tackle this issue.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 326, + 489, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the dependence of attack efficiency on the size of a training set and compare it with the so-called data-free approaches, such as the one proposed by Singla et al. (2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 439, + 489, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 531, + 285, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The work was supported by Ministry of Science and Higher Education grant No. 075-10-2021-068.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 556, + 489, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 615, + 213, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Melika Behjati, Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah, and Pascal Frossard. 2019. Universal adversarial attacks on text classifiers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7345-7349. IEEE.", + "David W Boyd. 1974. The power method for $l^p$ norms. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 9:95-101.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 33:1877-1901.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 637, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xinshuai Dong, Anh Tuan Luu, Rongrong Ji, and Hong Liu. 2021. Towards robustness against natural language word substitutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13541.", + "Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In Proceedings of Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE.", + "Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2014. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572.", + "Chuan Guo, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Hervé Jégou, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Gradient-based adversarial attacks against text transformers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5747-5757, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Valentin Khrulkov and Ivan Oseledets. 2018. Art of singular vectors and universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8562-8570. IEEE.", + "Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).", + "Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2017. Deep text classification can be fooled. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08006.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Andrew Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL): Human language technologies, pages 142-150.", + "Amil Merchant, Elahe Rahimtoroghi, Ellie Pavlick, and Ian Tenney. 2020. What happens to BERT embeddings during fine-tuning? In Proceedings of the Third BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 33-44, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "137", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Alhussein Fawzi, Omar Fawzi, and Pascal Frossard. 2017. Universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1765-1773.", + "John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi. 2020. TextAttack: A framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 119-126.", + "Vladislav Mosin, Igor Samenko, Borislav Kozlovskii, Alexey Tikhonov, and Ivan P Yamshchikov. 2023. Fine-tuning transformers: Vocabulary transfer. Artificial Intelligence, page 103860.", + "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 49-54.", + "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551.", + "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Semantically equivalent adversarial rules for debugging NLP models. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 856-865, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Andrey Savchenko, Anton Alekseev, Sejeong Kwon, Elena Tutubalina, Evgeny Myasnikov, and Sergey Nikolenko. 2020. Ad lingua: Text classification improves symbolism prediction in image advertisements. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conferences on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 1886-1892.", + "Yaman Kumar Singla, Swapnil Parekh, Somesh Singh, Changyou Chen, Balaji Krishnamurthy, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2022. MINIMAL: Mining models for universal adversarial triggers. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11330-11339.", + "Liwei Song, Xinwei Yu, Hsuan-Tung Peng, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2021. Universal adversarial attacks with natural triggers for text classification. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Linguistics (ACL): Human Language Technologies, pages 3724-3733. ACL.", + "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199.", + "Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2019. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2153-2162.", + "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. ACL.", + "Boxin Wang, Chejian Xu, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jianfeng Gao, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Bo Li. 2021. Adversarial GLUE: A multitask benchmark for robustness evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeuriPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2).", + "Yi Yang, Wen-tau Yih, and Christopher Meek. 2015. WikiQA: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2013-2018, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 32.", + "Lifan Yuan, Yichi Zhang, Yangyi Chen, and Wei Wei. 2021. Bridge the gap between CV and NLP! A gradient-based textual adversarial attack framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15317.", + "Yuan Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Luheng He. 2019. PAWS: Paraphrase adversaries from word scrambling. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1298-1308, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Junbo Zhao, Yoon Kim, Kelly Zhang, Alexander Rush, and Yann LeCun. 2018. Adversarially regularized autoencoders. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 5902-5911. PMLR." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "138", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Linear problem solution on $\\mathcal{S}$", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 408, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let us consider the following linear problem with a cost matrix $C$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 485, + 140 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\langle C, W \\rangle .\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 245, + 156, + 354, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We need to construct the Lagrangian $L$ and the consequent dual problem to obtain its solution.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 185, + 485, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} L = - \\operatorname {T r} ((C + M) ^ {\\top} W) + \\lambda^ {\\top} (W 1 - 1) \\\\ = - \\operatorname {T r} ((C + M - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top}) ^ {\\top} W) - \\lambda^ {\\top} 1 \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 225, + 455, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\lambda$ and $M$ are the Lagrange multipliers. From KKT conditions, we have:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 278, + 485, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nC + M - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top} = O,\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 319, + 381, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nM \\geq 0, \\quad M \\cdot W = 0, \\quad W 1 = 1,\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 341, + 433, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $M \\cdot W$ means elementwise multiplication. As a result, we obtain the following dual problem:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 487, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\max - \\lambda^ {\\top} 1, \\\\ s. t. - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top} \\leq - C. \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 413, + 376, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Under the assumption that each row of the cost matrix $C$ has a unique maximum, the closed-form solution will take the form:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 485, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\lambda_ {i} = \\max _ {j} C _ {i j}, \\forall i,\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 230, + 524, + 369, + 548 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and the corresponding primal solution", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 558, + 400, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nW = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} W _ {i j} = 1, j = \\operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {j} C _ {i j} \\forall i, \\\\ W _ {i j} = 0, \\text {o t h e r w i s e}. \\end{array} \\right.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 585, + 435, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Otherwise, if any row $i$ of $C$ violates the above assumption by having $k > 1$ maximal elements with indices $\\{j_1,\\ldots ,j_k\\}$ , then", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 636, + 485, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nW _ {i j} = \\frac {1}{k}, \\quad \\forall k \\in \\{j _ {1}, \\dots , j _ {k} \\}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 694, + 418, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Tables and plots", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 733, + 292, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this appendix, we present the results of", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 759, + 445, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- the ablation study on the top- $k$ and beam search parameters (see Fig. 5),", + "- the results of trigger analysis with PMI (see Tab. 6 and 7) for SST-2 and MRPC datasets,", + "- the LUATs which appear to be the best for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers (see Tab. 4 and 5)," + ], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 785, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- the cases when shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Tab. 10),", + "- the examples of the top-20 obtained triggers." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 84, + 880, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Concerning the transfer triggers, one can see that sometimes the same triggers efficiently break different models trained on different datasets, e.g., 'WHY voted beyond' (FR = 40.4 for ALBERT trained on QNLI, FR = 45.9 for BERT trained on QNLI, FR = 40.9 for RoBERTa trained on MRPC), 'unsuitable improper whether' (FR = 37.5 for BERT trained on SST-2, FR = 34.7 on RoBERTa trained on SST-2, FR = 22.8 for ALBERT trained on MRPC). This can serve as evidence of the high generalizability of universal adversarial triggers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 154, + 882, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "139", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ab723d25c7b2204bff2176a9a6e92e08af1861824e759434bf896b309030f73b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The results of the ablation study with respect to the top- $k$ and the beam size parameters on QNLI dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 95, + 319, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/093d5fc28d774c19b39a2162c6ef8025c937f7f0a43a797d82e429ef49ddfc9f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 321, + 96, + 505, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/869e2c6e749d8e40066e25325ffef524a16b9db10bbc1f3cfa481b42efff59a5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 505, + 96, + 690, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a56f390b6d14f6e37e510e660fa30db55f593f45d7680bc0070d4700ba8c536e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 690, + 96, + 875, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/605a1f1eb18eb64b08f9b02810d25cb92419818ad757595b5533ae28de012705.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
NBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank PRankNRank PRankNRank PRank
worst99.96also99.13fails99.70coming94.40neither
stupid99.87drama98.51devoid99.39foremost82.79failure
fails99.66definitely96.00failure98.90behalf81.14whether
poor99.48shows95.81whether97.22warmed28.42despite
neither99.35walk94.89unless94.21placement10.03considering
badly99.32ranks93.12irrelevant93.76irrelevant6.30because
crap98.91but86.00placement90.06unless5.91never
pacing97.94these84.96warmed71.65whether2.78despite
whether97.03wherein78.49behalf19.60failure1.11ball
every96.81weeks59.58foremost17.79devoid0.61notice
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 281, + 858, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/47664161e5586b2725dc9614589d7811905e6e6305ef56fd7ddd9857c4703bdf.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: PMI for the joint training and validation set of SST-2, N - Negative, P - Positive" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
NBERTRankNALBERTRankNRoBERTa
Rank ERankRank ERankRank ERank
succeeded97.09never97.74ashamed95.06after99.48waves95.42fire
seeing95.94least96.50stumbling87.91under99.45aside95.42against
merits88.23killing96.19tire87.91because98.89harming88.06water
longest88.23prison95.58cutting77.42since98.27skepticism88.06health
feeling78.82much94.49declined76.26how97.70burns88.06pleaded
raped77.95welcome94.04boise70.31whether97.51survives88.06nothing
batting77.95behind93.65fury66.42should97.12votes76.46won
jail74.66born92.60slay55.80cost96.57justice70.62NATO
banning70.64needed92.26reactions52.67serious96.38ressing65.60suffering
backing70.64nothing91.30disapprove52.67guilty96.31deceived48.45happens
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 511, + 850, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/da12badfec4001459c6ba41d1b6224b74630c08a69cd02b7d055945b656f6277.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: PMI for the joint training and validation set of MRPC, N – not equivalent, E – equivalent" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MRPC TriggerlQNLI TriggerlSST-2 Triggerl
A → Bthey ended and10preis much $100,0003unsuitable improper whether10
A → Rrostov she blushed1$100,000 what simulate2unsuitable improper whether10
B → Anothing pains kilograms1whichever thirds lithuanian9folding worse as5
B → Rsuffered sins declined11ibly semester longest8folding worse as5
R → AAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2decayingjuryNeither1
R → BAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2surprisingly refreshing lest11
", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 741, + 840, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for model-to-model transferability results presented in Tab. 4 for ALBERT (A), BERT (B), RoBERTa (R), where $l$ - the perturbed layer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 873, + 882, + 902 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "140", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/456ef69f0daeaf82c4ffd11aca50d23252856ff4cf5d0e177e338703fc05e917.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ALBERTBERTRoBERTa
TriggerlTriggerlTriggerl
M → Qnobody reminds austro8is blood corrupt9history doubtless beyond8
M → Sfailing forcing the4ching stiff punishments8history doubtless beyond8
Q → Mor widen further10whichever thirds lithuanian9WHY voted beyond2
Q → Strillion unless marylebone5ant trees romanized5wherein perished supra7
S → Munsuitable improper whether10seemed wiped whoever9Eating welcome respecting7
S → Qrenumbered littered neither8ogarily diminished4Crystal tasty ain9
", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 84, + 848, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e17e23438e17c143090be869a33ca46e4b2b3db397bad60c32ce0232a6a892ae.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for task-to-task transferability results presented in Tab. 5 for MRPC (M), QNLI (Q), SST-2 (S), where $l$ - the perturbed layer." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelLFR Val.FR TestTrigger
UAT, BERT238.638.4neither nor
UAT, BERT435.435.0situation nonetheless resulted nor
Ours, ALBERT, q = 7, i = 4524.824.8regretted joyahbwv although doubted
Ours, ALBERT, q = 4, i = 8621.421.4tremendous despair towedtrue 1985, doubted
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 260, + 878, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b7f9b9e700ae19191761311d22c91052887ffef2d5c93d054c63c8e7bb212fc5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: The examples of cases when a shorter-length trigger is more successful than a longer one. In both cases, triggers were fitted on MNLI." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetModelTriggers
MNLIALBERThamas doubted; neither motioned; i doubted pronoun; cursing neutron unless; transportation workers unless preferring;
BERTbut neither; remarkably neither; of neither nor; get neither outta even; backdrop but and neither; ft still maintained not whether
RoBERTaslideshow Show Neither; HELL Neither; THERE HAS NEVER; ohan Never nor; Fifa VERY NEVER Whether
MRPCALBERTunless if; whereas and; they ended and; unless stumbling out and; commerce corroborat declined and; and siblings live because
BERTagainst attempt; prepares worse conflicts; was priesthood killing contrary; each mortally duel harta; ring opposed her homosexuality
RoBERTaDrop until; actresses won awards; Enhanced Population Died Low; Harlem Recommended Submit BLM Question; hum DOWN burns firing Bloody Hyp
QNLIALBERTand 40%; averaged percentage; 88% finance 11%; vittorio whom relinquished; cristo, sharing whom reissued; downloadable bilingual why cancellation
BERTnine charities; carlos orient whom; whose reich declaring; gor german which emperor; maya commuted whose ballet
RoBERTanineteen countries; Nearly trillions trillion; Thousand hundred trillion; how MUCH mountains Cass; gui why sued awaits Reviews;
SST-2ALBERTflight unless; suck unnecessary; skidded irrelevant whether; failure placement unless; just whine worthless; fails subdistrict picture
BERTdegraded whether; dissatisfied neither; television failed whether; definitely worst wherein whoever; crap stupid feed whereby whether
RoBERTapowerfully refreshing; Beautiful enjoyable; surprisingly refreshing lest; Crystal importantly beautiful considering; thriller cool because whereas
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 418, + 868, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: WARNING: THE CONTENT OF THIS TABLE MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE, AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE AUTHORS' OPINION. The examples of LUATs depending on a dataset and a model. Triggers were selected manually from top-20 per length.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 882, + 913 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "141", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 514, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6", + "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 5", + "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Grammarly for check spelling" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 695, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 297, + 487, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 319, + 146, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3", + "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We used freely available models and dataset", + "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 344, + 880, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We did not discuss the indented use of the models and datasets which we used, since these are the models and datasets are known to everyone and their use is free.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 495, + 880, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 537, + 880, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We did not collect any data, and we used only publicly available datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 586, + 692, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 612, + 880, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We did not collect any data. The documentation for the datasets and models which we are used are publicly available.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 645, + 880, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 686, + 880, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 768, + 164, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 791, + 492, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 815, + 146, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 839, + 880, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 873, + 164, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 877, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "142", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3, Appendix B", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 117, + 258, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 142, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3, Appendix B", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 192, + 258, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 217, + 882, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 267, + 164, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 882, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 374, + 248, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 399, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 449, + 248, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 475, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 524, + 248, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 549, + 873, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 565, + 248, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 592, + 880, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 626, + 248, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "143", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_model.json b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..230e31f98d414d3a6ec8085a06ab36b6671a8cc4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3002 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.08, + 0.783, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.106, + 0.82, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olga Tsymboloi\\(^{1,2}\\), Danil Malaev\\(^{1}\\), Andrei Petrovskii\\(^{1}\\), and Ivan Oseledets\\(^{3,4}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.376, + 0.136, + 0.629, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Sber AI Lab, Moscow, Russia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.243, + 0.153, + 0.758, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.24, + 0.17, + 0.762, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.234, + 0.186, + 0.769, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (AIRI), Moscow, Russia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.204, + 0.878, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tsimboy.oa@phystech.edu, m9255171362@gmail.com, andreypetrovskij@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.388, + 0.221, + 0.621, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "i. oseledets@skoltech.ru" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we examine the vulnerability of language models to universal adversarial triggers (UATs). We propose a new white-box approach to the construction of layerwise UATs (LUATs), which searches the triggers by perturbing hidden layers of a network. On the example of three transformer models and three datasets from the GLUE benchmark, we demonstrate that our method provides better transferability in a model-to-model setting with an average gain of \\(9.3\\%\\) in the fooling rate over the baseline. Moreover, we investigate triggers transferability in the task-to-task setting. Using small subsets from the datasets similar to the target tasks for choosing a perturbed layer, we show that LUATs are more efficient than vanilla UATs by \\(7.1\\%\\) in the fooling rate." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.538, + 0.262, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One of the fundamental drawbacks of modern neural networks is their vulnerability to adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2014), imperceptible perturbations to the data samples that leave the ground truth label unchanged but are able to modify model prediction drastically. The samples obtained as the result of these perturbations are called adversarial examples. First discovered for image datasets (Szegedy et al., 2013), this phenomenon was then demonstrated for other types of data, including natural language (Papernot et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The originally proposed methods of adversarial attack construction were sample-dependent, which means that one can not apply the same perturbation to different dataset items and expect equal success. Sample-agnostic, or in other words, universal, adversarial perturbations (UAPs) were proposed in Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017), where based on a small subset of image data, the authors constructed perturbations leading to prediction change of \\(80 - 90\\%\\) (depending on the model) of samples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.254, + 0.882, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "They also showed that UAPs discovered on one model could successfully fool another." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.288, + 0.885, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The generalization of the universal attacks to natural language data was made by Wallace et al. (2019). Short additives (triggers) were inserted at the beginning of data samples, and then a search over the token space, in order to maximize the probability of the negative class on the chosen data subset, was performed. The found triggers turned out to be very efficient at fooling the model, repeating the success of UAPs proposed for images." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.435, + 0.885, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The conventional way to look for adversarial examples is to perturb the output of a model. Considering image classification neural networks, Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018) proposed to search for perturbations to hidden layers by approximating the so-called \\((p,q)\\)-singular vectors (Boyd, 1974) of the corresponding Jacobian matrix. Then one can hope that the error will propagate through the whole network end, resulting in model prediction change. They showed that this approach allows obtaining a high fooling rate based on significantly smaller data subsets than those leveraged by Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we aim to continue the investigation of neural networks' vulnerability to universal adversarial attacks in the case of natural language data. Inspired by the approach considered by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), we look for the perturbations to hidden layers of a model instead of the loss function. In order to avoid projection from embedding to discrete space, we use simplex parametrization of the search space (see, e.g. (Dong et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021)). We formulate the corresponding optimization problem and propose the algorithm for obtaining its approximate solution. On the example of three transformer models: BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), ALBERT (Lan et al., 2020) and three GLUE datasets (Wang et al., 2018) we demonstrate higher efficiency of our method over the original approach" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "129" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.236, + 0.946, + 0.761, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 129-143" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.085, + 0.87, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.195, + 0.883, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: LUATs (ours): Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers. The algorithm scheme, where \\(\\nabla F_l\\) is defined in (8)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.25, + 0.487, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of Wallace et al. (2019) in the setting of model-to-model and task-to-task transfer. We also show that in the case of direct attack application, our method demonstrates the results which are on par with the baseline, where perturbation of the loss function was realized. We hope that this technique will serve as a useful tool for discovering flaws and deepening our understanding of language neural networks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.413, + 0.251, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Framework" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.443, + 0.489, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let \\( f: \\mathcal{X} \\to \\mathcal{Y} \\) be a text classification model defined for a dataset \\( \\mathcal{D} = \\{x_i, y_i\\}_{i=1}^N \\), where \\( x_i \\) is an input and \\( y_i \\) is a corresponding label. Our goal is to find a small perturbation to the original input sequences that leads to a change in a model prediction for the maximum possible number of samples. Such perturbation could be modelled as an insertion of a trigger, a token sequence \\( t \\) of small length \\( L \\), into a particular part of an input. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we call such text perturbations universal adversarial triggers (UATs). In this paper, we focus on triggers concatenated to the front of a sentence and denote a corrupted sample as \\( \\hat{x} = t \\oplus x \\). It is also important to note that, in contrast to Wallace et al. (2019), we consider the unsupervised scenario when an attacker does not have access to the labels. For evaluation we follow Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017) and use the fooling rate (FR):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.765, + 0.487, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nF R = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {\\hat {x} = t \\oplus x, x \\in \\mathcal {D}} [ f (x) \\neq f (\\hat {x}) ]. \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Universal adversarial triggers. Before we dive into the description of our approach, it is worth depicting the original method of UATs. Restricting themselves to the white-box setting, Wallace et al. (2019) showed that an efficient way to find UATs could be performed through the optimization of the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.25, + 0.808, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "first-order expected loss approximation:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.549, + 0.278, + 0.883, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\max _ {t \\in \\mathcal {V} ^ {L}} \\mathbb {E} _ {x, y \\sim \\mu} \\langle \\nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} (t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y), t - t ^ {n} \\rangle , \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.313, + 0.884, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mu\\) is a distribution of input data, \\(t^n\\) denotes the trigger found after the \\(n\\)-th iteration, \\(\\mathcal{V}\\) stands for the token vocabulary and the initial trigger \\(t^0\\) can be chosen as the \\(L\\)-time repetition of the word \"the\". For simplicity, here (and below in similar situations), by \\(t\\), we mean its embedding if the gradient is taken with respect to it or if it appears as a term in a scalar product." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to find the optimal perturbation within each iteration, the expectation in (2) is relaxed with the average over a batch, and maximization is performed for each trigger token independently:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.532, + 0.883, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\max _ {t _ {j} \\in \\mathcal {V}} \\sum_ {x, y \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\left\\langle \\nabla_ {t _ {j} ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y\\right), t _ {j} - t _ {j} ^ {n} \\right\\rangle , \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.576, + 0.884, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( j \\) is the token index. After solving (3), the next trigger \\( t^{n + 1} \\) is selected via beam search over all the token positions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.625, + 0.885, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach: layerwise universal adversarial triggers (LUATs). In (3), we face the optimization problem over a discrete set of tokens from the vocabulary \\(\\mathcal{V}\\). To overcome this issue, let us relax (3) using the probability simplex model for every token. In this case, a trigger can be represented as \\(t = WV\\), where \\(V\\) is a vocabulary matrix and \\(W_{mn}\\) is a probability of the \\(n\\)-th token from vocabulary to be selected at position \\(m\\). Then (3) can be rewritten as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.793, + 0.883, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\sum_ {x, y \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\left\\langle \\nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y\\right), W V - t ^ {n} \\right\\rangle , \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.839, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathcal{S} = \\{W|W1 = 1,W\\geq 0\\}\\) and \\(W\\geq 0\\) denotes an element-wise inequality. In this formulation, the search for the solution is done by performing optimization of the weights \\(W\\) over the simplex \\(\\mathcal{S}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "130" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach can be seen as an extension of (4) to the perturbation of hidden layers. This is inspired by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), who applied this idea to find UAPs for fooling image classification neural networks. Given a layer \\(l\\), the optimization problem, in this case, can be similarly obtained via the Taylor expansion:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.211, + 0.487, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} l (\\hat {x}) - l (\\hat {x} ^ {n}) \\approx J _ {l} (\\hat {x} ^ {n}) (\\hat {x} - \\hat {x} ^ {n}) \\\\ \\left\\| l (\\hat {x}) - l \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right)\\right\\| _ {q} ^ {q} \\rightarrow \\max _ {t \\in \\mathcal {V} ^ {L}}, \\tag {5} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.267, + 0.49, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\hat{x}^n = t^n\\oplus x\\) \\(q\\) is a hyperparameter to be fine-tuned and \\(J_{l}(x)\\) is the Jacobian operator corresponding to a layer \\(l\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.241, + 0.326, + 0.488, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nJ _ {l} (x) = \\frac {\\partial l (x)}{\\partial x}. \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.369, + 0.411, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bringing (4) and (5) together we obtain" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.397, + 0.487, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\max_{W\\in \\mathcal{S}}F_{l}(W) = \\\\ \\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\sum_ {x \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\| J _ {l} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x\\right) \\left(W V - t ^ {n}\\right) \\| _ {q} ^ {q}. \\tag {7} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.468, + 0.49, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast to (3), finding the optimal solution of (7) is computationally infeasible. Indeed, the problem (3) allows a brute-force approach for finding the optimal token for each trigger position since it requires computing the gradient only once for each iteration. On the other hand, in our case, a brute-force computation is very cumbersome since, for each iteration, it would require computing the Jacobian action for every batch, token candidate and position, resulting in \\(\\mathcal{O}(LB|\\mathcal{V}|)\\) forward-backward passes, where \\(B\\) is the number of batches in an iteration. Luckily, \\(F_{l}(W)\\) is convex and can be lower bounded via a tangent line, where the gradient is calculated as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.707, + 0.487, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\nabla F _ {l} (W) = \\\\ \\sum_ {x \\in \\text {b a t c h}} J _ {l} ^ {\\top} \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right) \\psi_ {q} \\left(J _ {l} \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right) \\left(W V - t ^ {n}\\right)\\right) V ^ {\\top}, \\tag {8} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.773, + 0.489, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\psi_q(x) = \\mathrm{sign}(x)|x|^{q - 1}\\). Therefore, our task is reduced to finding the solution to the linear problem with the simplicial constraint:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.219, + 0.835, + 0.488, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\max _ {W \\in S} \\left\\langle \\nabla F _ {l} \\left(W ^ {*}\\right), W \\right\\rangle , \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\nabla F_l(W)\\) is given by (8) and \\(W^{*}\\) denotes the point where we perform the linear approximation. The final problem (9) has a closed-form solution" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(see the Appendix A for more details) and, as a result, we reduced the number of forward-backward computations to \\(\\mathcal{O}(B)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.133, + 0.884, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Concerning the initialization of \\( W^{*} \\), we take the uniform distribution over all the vocabulary tokens for each token position in a trigger. Within each iteration, we perform only one step with respect to \\( W \\) in order to reduce computation time and observe that it is sufficient for breaking the models efficiently." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.246, + 0.885, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, since the found after a given iteration weight matrix \\( W \\) in the worst case has only one non-zero element per row (see Appendix A), we can get into a local maximum unless we guess the proper initialization. Therefore, similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), we perform a beam search over the top-\\( k \\) candidates. In order to realize it, it is necessary to define the ranking criterion for choosing the best option at each search step. For this purpose, we use the FR. The overall algorithm is presented in Algorithm 1 and Fig. 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.438, + 0.836, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: LUATs: Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.472, + 0.852, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Dataset \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) ,victim model,tokenizer, \\(q\\) layer to attack \\(l\\) trigger length \\(L\\) top- \\(k\\) ,beam size \\(b\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.52, + 0.669, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Trigger \\( t \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.536, + 0.718, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 \\(t =\\) tokenizer( the...the) L times" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.566, + 0.691, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 \\(W = \\frac{1}{|\\mathcal{V}|}\\mathrm{ones}(L,|\\mathcal{V}|)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.536, + 0.718, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.587, + 0.692, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 while FR increase do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.602, + 0.681, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Sample batch \\(X\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.619, + 0.78, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Compute \\(\\nabla F_{l}(W)\\) over batch" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.636, + 0.828, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 candidates \\(=\\) Select indices of \\(k\\) largest entries of \\(\\nabla F_l(W)\\) for each token position" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.684, + 0.845, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 \\(\\begin{array}{r}t = \\mathrm{BeamSearch}(\\mathcal{D},\\mathrm{candidates},b)\\mathrm{to}\\\\ \\mathrm{maximize~FR} \\end{array}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.602, + 0.845, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.748, + 0.656, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.772, + 0.884, + 0.836 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present a numerical study of the proposed layerwise adversarial attack framework on text classification datasets. The code is publicly available on GitHub1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.846, + 0.602, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.884, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets. As in the work of Wang et al. (2021), we consider only a subset of tasks from the GLUE" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.836, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)https://github.com/sb-ai-lab/nlp-layerwise-fooler" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "131" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "benchmark. In particular, we use SST-2 for the sentiment classification, MNLI (matched), QNLI, RTE for the natural language inference and MRPC as the paraphrase identification. We exclude CoLA, which task is to define whether the input is grammatically correct or not, and universal triggers are highly probable to change most of the ground-truth positive labels to negative. Finally, WNLI is not considered because it contains too few examples. We conduct our experiments using the validation set for attack fitting and the test set for evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.266, + 0.49, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models. We focus our consideration on three transformer models: BERT base, RoBERTa base and ALBERT base using the pre-trained weights from the TextAttack project (Morris et al., 2020) for most of the model-dataset cases. For some of them, the performance was unsatisfactory (all the models on MNLI, ALBERT on QNLI, RoBERTa on SST-2, RTE), and we fine-tuned them on the corresponding training sets (Mosin et al., 2023). To train our attack, we use existing GLUE datasets splits. The detailed statistics is presented in Tab. 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyperparameters. In our experiments, we investigate the attack performance depending on the dataset, model, layer \\(l\\) (from 0 to 11), trigger length \\(L \\in \\{1,2,3,4,5,6\\}\\) and \\(q \\in \\{2,3,4,5,7,10\\}\\). For each dataset, model and trigger length, we performed a grid search over \\(l\\) and \\(q\\). The other parameters, such as top-\\(k\\) and the beam size, remain fixed to the values obtained from the corresponding ablation study. In all experiments, we use a batch size of 128. Finally, we define the initialization of \\(W\\) as the uniform distribution over the vocabulary tokens for each position in a trigger (see Algorithm 1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.643, + 0.49, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Token filtration and resegmentation. Transformers' vocabulary contains items such as symbols, special tokens and unused words, which are easily detected during the inference. To increase triggers' imperceptibility, we exclude them from the vocabulary matrix during optimization leaving only those which contain english letters or numbers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another problem appears since a lot of tokens do not correspond to complete words but rather pieces of words (sub-words). As a result, if the first found token corresponds to a sub-word, one encounters the retokenization, meaning that, after converting the found trigger to string and back, the set of the tokens can change. Moreover, sometimes one has to deal with appearing symbols such as \"##\" in a trigger. In this case, we drop all the extra" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "symbols and perform the retokenization. Luckily, it does not result in severe performance degradation. In the case when, due to the resegmentation, the length of a trigger changes, we report the result as for the length for which the attack training was performed. As an alternative to direct resegmentation, we tried to transform triggers by passing them through an MLM model, but this approach led to a more significant drop in performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.248, + 0.661, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.272, + 0.885, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with the baseline. We perform a comparison of LUATs with untargeted UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). In order to stay in the unsupervised setting, we modify their approach by replacing the ground truth labels in the cross-entropy loss function with the class probabilities. As a result, we search for a trigger that maximizes the distance between model output distributions before and after the perturbation. In addition, as the criterion for choosing the best alternative in the beam search, we use FR for both methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.451, + 0.885, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform the ablation study to estimate the dependence of FR on top- \\(k\\) and the beam size. For the beam size 1, we measure both attacks' performance for different values of top- \\(k\\) from 1 to 40. Then for the best top- \\(k\\), we build the dependence on the beam size from 1 to 5. We perform this study on the QNLI dataset. The results are presented in the Fig. 5. We stick to the top- \\(k\\) 10 and the beam size 1 as a trade-off between high performance and low computational complexity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The grid search results are presented in Tab. 2, where for each model, dataset, and trigger length, we show the best results of both approaches. We performed the computation on four GPU's NVIDIA A100 of 80GB. To reduce the influence hyperparameters searching space cardinality (72 times more runs due to different values of \\( q \\) and \\( L \\)), in Fig. 2, we present a time, averaged over 10 batches, per one iteration of both approaches. Indeed, for LUATs, we observe linear dependence on a layer, particularly 7.27 seconds on average versus 8.05 seconds for UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). The triggers obtained with the method of Wallace et al. (2019) took only 5 GPU hours; hence the execution time of the full grid search for LUATs could be estimated by 325 GPU hours. While the proposed method might be more efficient on average, high variance is explained by significantly different paddings in sampled batches." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "132" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.082, + 0.846, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetValidationTest# ClassesBERT\nAcc. Val. / TestRoBERTa\nAcc. Val. / TestALBERT\nAcc. Val. / Test
MRPC4081725287.7/84.490.4/87.289.7/86.0
QNLI54635463291.5/90.791.8/91.890.6/90.8
MNLI98159796384.2/83.786.5/86.383.8/83.5
SST-28721821292.4/93.394.0/94.992.7/91.7
RTE2773000272.6/67.680.5/74.076.0/72.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.2, + 0.884, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Statistics of the considered classification datasets. We present datasets cardinality, the number of classes and model accuracy on both validation and test sets." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.257, + 0.451, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.444, + 0.488, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The iteration average time for UAT and LUAT (ours) approaches. The results presented on the QNLI dataset with fixed \\( q = 10 \\), \\( L = 3 \\) and a batch size of 128. Since, for the case of LUATs, the standard deviation does not change significantly, we report the value averaged over layers as \\( \\overline{std}_{LUAT} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.553, + 0.487, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is interesting to note that in some cases, shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Appendix A, Tab. 10). That is why we present the best performance for each length \\( L \\) over all the lengths less or equal to \\( L \\). From Tab. 2, one can see that our method demonstrates the results, which are on par with Wallace et al. (2019). In Fig. 3, we present the dependence of FR on the trigger length \\( L \\). The attack performance saturates when it approaches 5 or 6, meaning that considering longer triggers would hardly bring any performance gain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.73, + 0.487, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wallace et al. (2019) suggested that the efficiency of universal adversarial triggers can be explained by the existence of dataset biases, such as fallacious correlations between certain words and classes and supported this conjecture by computing pointwise mutual information (PMI) of vocabulary tokens and dataset classes" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.848, + 0.47, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathrm {P M I} (t o k e n, c l a s s) = \\log {\\frac {p (t o k e n , c l a s s)}{p (t o k e n) p (c l a s s)}}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As a result, they reported a high PMI rank for their tiggers tokens. In order to verify whether LUATs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.256, + 0.883, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "satisfy the same pattern, we perform this computation for our best triggers. We sample 5 best candidates obtained during the grid search for each trigger length and compute PMI rank with add-100 smoothing for their tokens. The results on \\(\\mathrm{QNLI}^2\\) (see the Tab. 3) demonstrate that similarly to UATs our trigger tokens have high PMI ranks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.884, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dependence on \\( q \\) and a layer. For the investigation of dependence on \\( q \\) and a layer, we restrict ourselves to the datasets which appear to be the most vulnerable in our experiments: MRPC, QNLI and SST. The results are presented in Fig. 4, where we performed averaging over the lengths. One can conclude that, in general, it is more efficient to attack the higher layers. This observation can be interpreted with the idea which has been mentioned above; namely, that the efficiency of the triggers is caused by the existence of dataset biases. Indeed, as Merchant et al. (2020) demonstrated, fine-tuning for a downstream task primarily affects the higher layers of a model. Therefore, the bias which could be acquired due to fine-tuning should be accumulated in its higher layers. Since we try to fool a model with respect to a downstream task, the appearance of the higher layers among the most successful ones is more probable. Finally, it is interesting to note that the dependence on \\( q \\) also demonstrates better results for the larger values, which is in accordance with the findings of Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.739, + 0.882, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transferability: model-to-model. It was demonstrated that the universal triggers could be transferable between different models trained on the same task (Wallace et al., 2019). Here, we perform a comparison of their approach and ours with respect to this property. Similarly to the above consideration, the computations are carried out on MRPC, QNLI and SST-2 datasets, with an additional restriction on the trigger length \\( L = 3 \\), which" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2The results on SST-2 and MRPC are presented in the Appendix B on the Tab. 6 and 7" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "133" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.089, + 0.851, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelDatasetFR@1FR@2FR@3FR@4FR@5FR@6
WSWSWSWSWSWS
ALBERTMNLI18.514.825.817.025.818.534.821.134.824.834.824.8
MRPC11.44.527.628.947.954.866.664.166.667.067.667.6
QNLI26.437.547.548.150.550.850.551.552.252.452.552.4
RTE4.84.96.311.97.911.99.117.79.117.79.117.7
SST-221.029.734.838.845.546.447.948.550.648.750.648.7
BERTMNLI32.010.238.433.638.434.538.434.738.435.638.435.6
MRPC15.49.364.656.670.669.070.770.470.870.670.870.7
QNLI26.223.242.637.947.242.350.649.150.650.850.850.8
RTE4.74.26.66.77.18.57.610.27.610.211.210.2
SST-229.727.042.138.042.144.642.148.250.649.050.849
RoBERTaMNLI4.88.24.922.333.028.833.030.033.033.133.033.1
MRPC4.24.935.526.367.868.569.469.369.469.369.569.3
QNLI14.713.332.639.041.544.944.547.348.147.748.148.3
RTE3.16.36.113.66.113.68.013.68.016.39.216.3
SST-228.426.934.738.743.945.949.947.149.950.749.953.1
Average-16.315.030.030.538.438.941.541.542.742.943.143.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.371, + 0.884, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison between LUAT (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report the best FR on the test sets for triggers whose length does not exceed \\( L \\) (FR@L)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.422, + 0.875, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
EBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank NRankERank NRankERank N
emperor94.69either99.6070%98.95those99.02
berlin93.72legislation97.6010%96.10amount98.59
whose92.14can97.083,50093.82unless93.46
russian90.91ter95.3718%93.727192.72
cardinal90.25latitude93.8120%93.45nor92.46
orient89.83dalai92.04whose91.79where91.30
german89.03samurai90.5211%88.79besides90.62
korean87.77granting90.2454%88.34correlation88.56
fide84.10reich90.10supplemented86.34holds87.90
atop82.91banning88.4750%85.46waived87.12
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.166, + 0.606, + 0.831, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: PMI for the joint training and validation set of QNLI, E - Entailment, N - Not entailment" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.643, + 0.875, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
From/ToMRPC, W/SQNLI, W/SSST-2, W/S
ALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTa
ALBERT-22.8/53.533.9/69.1-45.6/36.139.0/38.1-30.6/37.524.2/34.7
BERT6.7/17.2-60.5/67.834.6/36.3-22.0/36.031.0/29.3-17.7/24.1
RoBERTa15.3/32.155.5/64.6-20.4/40.418.0/35.9-34.1/26.236.9/37.7-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.736, + 0.884, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different models trained on a fixed dataset for the trigger length \\( L = 3 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.787, + 0.85, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
From/ToALBERT, W/SBERT, W/SRoBERTa, W/S
MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2
MRPC-9.5/21.95.4/32.5-18.3/17.611.8/9.4-31.4/25.65.3/6.0
QNLI13.6/14.0-9.0/31.732.9/35.5-2.8/4.722.7/40.9-2.9/8.9
SST-28.6/22.831.3/36.0-29.7/64.827.5/21.2-18.1/13.914.0/15.9-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.879, + 0.884, + 0.908 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different datasets for a fixed model and the trigger length \\( L = 3 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "134" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.083, + 0.365, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.214, + 0.219, + 0.266, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) SST." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.377, + 0.083, + 0.621, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.464, + 0.219, + 0.534, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) MRPC." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.637, + 0.083, + 0.882, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.727, + 0.219, + 0.788, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c)QNLI." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.242, + 0.882, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: FR for optimal \\( q \\) depending on the trigger length for the most vulnerable sets. The plots show FR saturation which is achieved for short enough triggers." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.291, + 0.355, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.387, + 0.291, + 0.614, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.647, + 0.291, + 0.875, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.45, + 0.884, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: FR dependence on LUATs hyperperameters. The efficiency of our attack increases with \\( q \\) and the layer number." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.505, + 0.49, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is done for simplicity. In this setting, we suppose that an attacker has access to the data and also to the input and output of an attacked model. When transferring the UATs, the best trigger obtained with a source model is taken and then applied directly to a target model on a test set. For LUATs, however, one can come up with a better way. Since a target model is different from a source one, it is not necessary that the same values of \\( q \\) and \\( l \\) would provide the best pick for the transfer. Therefore, since an attacker has access to the forward pass of a target model, we evaluate with it the fooling rate of the best triggers found for each value of \\( q \\) and \\( l \\) on a validation set and then apply the best option to a test set to get the final score. For simplicity, we fix \\( q = 10 \\), which according to the Fig. 4, is the best alternative on average. The final results are presented in the Tab. 4. One can see that in most cases, we outperform the UATs with an average gain of \\( 9.3\\% \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transferability: task-to-task. The fact that the universal triggers can generalize to other models trained on the same task seems natural since, in this case, it is highly probable that a source and a target model would acquire the same biases. A" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.505, + 0.885, + 0.907 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "more complicated situation is when one tries to transfer triggers between different tasks. In this setting, an attacker looks for more fundamental task-independent flaws of a model, which can be explained, e.g., by a bias appearing during the pretraining phase. In order to examine this capacity of the triggers, we perform their transferring between different datasets for each of the considered models. For measuring the performance of the UATs, as in the previous case, the best trigger obtained on a source task is transferred. On the other hand, for the layerwise approach, one, under a reasonable assumption, can still suggest a natural way to choose the most appropriate for transfer trigger among the best triggers corresponding to different values of \\( q \\) and \\( l \\). Namely, we suppose that although attackers do not have access to data on which a target model was trained, they know a task for which it was trained. It means that they know whether it is sentiment classification, paraphrase identification, etc. (Savchenko et al., 2020). If this is the case, they can generate data corresponding to the task of interest. In order to mimic such a situation, for each of the datasets (SST-2, MRPC, QNLI), we select an auxiliary dataset collected for the same task." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "135" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The map is the following: SST-2 - IMDb (Maas et al., 2011), MRPC - PAWS (Zhang et al., 2019), QNLI - WikiQA (Yang et al., 2015). We sample subsets of sizes 64, 128, and 256 from the auxiliary datasets and consider them as the data generated by an attacker. Again, fixing \\( q = 10 \\) for simplicity, we evaluate the best trigger obtained for each layer on a corresponding auxiliary subset, performing inference on a target model. Herewith, each subset is sampled five times, and we report the average score for the size of 256, which appears to be the best option. The final results for both approaches are shown in the Tab. 5. Our approach demonstrates the average improvement of \\( 7.1\\% \\) in fooling rate over the vanilla UATs. The reason for that might be related to the fact that if this kind of triggers (task-independent) is indeed related to the pretraining phase, in order to find them, one instead should perturb the lower or middle layers since the higher layers' weights can change a lot after fine-tuning. The LUATs which appear to be most successful at transferring are presented in the Tab. 8 and 9 of the Appendix B for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers correspondingly." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.487, + 0.268, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.487, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are already quite a few works devoted to the universal attack on NLP models in the literature. We briefly discuss them here." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.564, + 0.487, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ribeiro et al. (2018) proposed a sample-agnostic approach to generate adversarial examples in the case of NLP models by applying a semantics-preserving set of rules consisting of specific word substitutions. However, found rules were not completely universal, resulting in model prediction change only for \\(1\\% - 4\\%\\) out of targeted samples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.678, + 0.487, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), the realization of text adversarial attacks as short insertions to the input were proposed by Behjati et al. (2019). Though, they did not perform the search over the whole vocabulary for each word position in the trigger but instead exploited cosine-similarity projected gradient descent, which does not appear that efficient in the sense of attack performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.807, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adversarial triggers generated by the method proposed by Wallace et al. (2019) in general turned out to be semantically meaningless, which makes them easier to detect by defence systems. An attempt to make triggers more natural was undertaken by Song et al. (2021). Leveraging an adversarially regularized autoencoder (Zhao et al., 2018)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to generate the triggers, they managed to improve their semantic meaning without significantly decreasing the attack efficiency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.134, + 0.882, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another interesting direction is to minimize the amount of data needed for finding UAPs. Singla et al. (2022) created representatives of each class by minimizing the loss function linear approximation over the text sequences of a certain size. Afterwards, adversarial triggers were appended to these class representatives and the rest of the procedure followed Wallace et al. (2019). Although no data was used explicitly for training the attack, this approach demonstrated solid performance on considered datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.324, + 0.64, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.35, + 0.882, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a new layerwise framework for the construction of universal adversarial attacks on NLP models. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we look for them in the form of triggers; however, in order to find the best attack, we do not perturb the loss function but neural network intermediate layers. We show that our approach demonstrates better performance when the triggers are transferred to different models and tasks. The latter might be related to the fact that in order to be transferred successfully between different datasets, a trigger should reflect network flaws that are task-independent. In this case, reducing the attack search to perturbation of the lower or middle layers might be more beneficial since the higher layers are highly influenced by fine-tuning. We hope this method will serve as a good tool for investigating the shortcomings of language models and improving our understanding of neural networks' intrinsic mechanisms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.656, + 0.882, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to conclude by discussing the potential risks. As any type of technology, machine learning methods can be used for good and evil. In particular, adversarial attacks can be used for misleading released machine learning models. Nevertheless, we think that revealing the weaknesses of modern neural networks is very important for making them more secure in the future and also for being able to make conscious decisions when deploying them." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.83, + 0.788, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Limitations and future work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.856, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach to universal text perturbations suffers from linguistic inconsistency, which makes them easier to detect. Therefore, as the next step of our research, it would be interesting to investigate" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.489, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "136" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.492, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the possibility of improving the naturalness of adversarial triggers without degradation of the attack performance in terms of the fooling rate." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.134, + 0.49, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While the proposed approach outperforms the UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) in the transferability task, we should highlight that the additional hyperparameters adjustment plays a crucial role, and one could suggest validation procedure refinement for a more fair comparison. Also, for both direct and transferability settings, a more comprehensive range of models should be examined, including recurrent (Yuan et al., 2021) and transformer architectures, e.g., T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), XLNet (Yang et al., 2019), GPT family models (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.327, + 0.49, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another direction of improvement is related to the fact that sometimes the found triggers can change the ground truth label of samples they are concatenated to if, e.g., they contain words contradicting the true sense of a sentence. It would be interesting to analyze how often this happens and develop an approach to tackle this issue." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.44, + 0.49, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the dependence of attack efficiency on the size of a training set and compare it with the so-called data-free approaches, such as the one proposed by Singla et al. (2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.532, + 0.287, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.557, + 0.49, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The work was supported by Ministry of Science and Higher Education grant No. 075-10-2021-068." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.616, + 0.214, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.638, + 0.49, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Melika Behjati, Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah, and Pascal Frossard. 2019. Universal adversarial attacks on text classifiers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7345-7349. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.727, + 0.489, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David W Boyd. 1974. The power method for \\( l^p \\) norms. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 9:95-101." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.764, + 0.488, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.638, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinshuai Dong, Anh Tuan Luu, Rongrong Ji, and Hong Liu. 2021. Towards robustness against natural language word substitutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13541." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.213, + 0.885, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In Proceedings of Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.29, + 0.884, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2014. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.34, + 0.884, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chuan Guo, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Hervé Jégou, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Gradient-based adversarial attacks against text transformers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5747-5757, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.443, + 0.885, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Valentin Khrulkov and Ivan Oseledets. 2018. Art of singular vectors and universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8562-8570. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.52, + 0.884, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.61, + 0.883, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2017. Deep text classification can be fooled. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08006." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.673, + 0.885, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.75, + 0.884, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL): Human language technologies, pages 142-150." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amil Merchant, Elahe Rahimtoroghi, Ellie Pavlick, and Ian Tenney. 2020. What happens to BERT embeddings during fine-tuning? In Proceedings of the Third BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 33-44, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "137" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Alhussein Fawzi, Omar Fawzi, and Pascal Frossard. 2017. Universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1765-1773." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.487, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi. 2020. TextAttack: A framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 119-126." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.265, + 0.487, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vladislav Mosin, Igor Samenko, Borislav Kozlovskii, Alexey Tikhonov, and Ivan P Yamshchikov. 2023. Fine-tuning transformers: Vocabulary transfer. Artificial Intelligence, page 103860." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.329, + 0.487, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 49-54." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.405, + 0.487, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.469, + 0.487, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.558, + 0.487, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Semantically equivalent adversarial rules for debugging NLP models. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 856-865, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.661, + 0.487, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrey Savchenko, Anton Alekseev, Sejeong Kwon, Elena Tutubalina, Evgeny Myasnikov, and Sergey Nikolenko. 2020. Ad lingua: Text classification improves symbolism prediction in image advertisements. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conferences on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 1886-1892." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.487, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaman Kumar Singla, Swapnil Parekh, Somesh Singh, Changyou Chen, Balaji Krishnamurthy, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2022. MINIMAL: Mining models for universal adversarial triggers. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11330-11339." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Liwei Song, Xinwei Yu, Hsuan-Tung Peng, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2021. Universal adversarial attacks with natural triggers for text classification. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linguistics (ACL): Human Language Technologies, pages 3724-3733. ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.123, + 0.882, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.186, + 0.882, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2019. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2153-2162." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.287, + 0.882, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.389, + 0.882, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Boxin Wang, Chejian Xu, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jianfeng Gao, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Bo Li. 2021. Adversarial GLUE: A multitask benchmark for robustness evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeuriPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.491, + 0.882, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Yang, Wen-tau Yih, and Christopher Meek. 2015. WikiQA: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2013-2018, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.58, + 0.882, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.655, + 0.882, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifan Yuan, Yichi Zhang, Yangyi Chen, and Wei Wei. 2021. Bridge the gap between CV and NLP! A gradient-based textual adversarial attack framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15317." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.718, + 0.882, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuan Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Luheng He. 2019. PAWS: Paraphrase adversaries from word scrambling. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1298-1308, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.833, + 0.882, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junbo Zhao, Yoon Kim, Kelly Zhang, Alexander Rush, and Yann LeCun. 2018. Adversarially regularized autoencoders. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 5902-5911. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.488, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "138" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.409, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Linear problem solution on \\(\\mathcal{S}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.11, + 0.487, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let us consider the following linear problem with a cost matrix \\( C \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.246, + 0.158, + 0.356, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\langle C, W \\rangle .\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.186, + 0.487, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We need to construct the Lagrangian \\(L\\) and the consequent dual problem to obtain its solution." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.227, + 0.457, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} L = - \\operatorname {T r} ((C + M) ^ {\\top} W) + \\lambda^ {\\top} (W 1 - 1) \\\\ = - \\operatorname {T r} ((C + M - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top}) ^ {\\top} W) - \\lambda^ {\\top} 1 \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.279, + 0.487, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\lambda\\) and \\(M\\) are the Lagrange multipliers. From KKT conditions, we have:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.22, + 0.32, + 0.382, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nC + M - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top} = O,\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.342, + 0.434, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nM \\geq 0, \\quad M \\cdot W = 0, \\quad W 1 = 1,\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.372, + 0.489, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(M \\cdot W\\) means elementwise multiplication. As a result, we obtain the following dual problem:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.222, + 0.414, + 0.378, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\max - \\lambda^ {\\top} 1, \\\\ s. t. - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top} \\leq - C. \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.465, + 0.487, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Under the assumption that each row of the cost matrix \\(C\\) has a unique maximum, the closed-form solution will take the form:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.231, + 0.525, + 0.371, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\lambda_ {i} = \\max _ {j} C _ {i j}, \\forall i,\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.56, + 0.4, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and the corresponding primal solution" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.586, + 0.436, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nW = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} W _ {i j} = 1, j = \\operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {j} C _ {i j} \\forall i, \\\\ W _ {i j} = 0, \\text {o t h e r w i s e}. \\end{array} \\right.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.637, + 0.487, + 0.686 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Otherwise, if any row \\(i\\) of \\(C\\) violates the above assumption by having \\(k > 1\\) maximal elements with indices \\(\\{j_1,\\ldots ,j_k\\}\\), then" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.695, + 0.42, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nW _ {i j} = \\frac {1}{k}, \\quad \\forall k \\in \\{j _ {1}, \\dots , j _ {k} \\}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.734, + 0.294, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Tables and plots" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.76, + 0.446, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this appendix, we present the results of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.786, + 0.486, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- the ablation study on the top-\\(k\\) and beam search parameters (see Fig. 5)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.829, + 0.485, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- the results of trigger analysis with PMI (see Tab. 6 and 7) for SST-2 and MRPC datasets," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.872, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- the LUATs which appear to be the best for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers (see Tab. 4 and 5)," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.786, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- the cases when shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Tab. 10)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.128, + 0.88, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- the examples of the top-20 obtained triggers." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.155, + 0.884, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Concerning the transfer triggers, one can see that sometimes the same triggers efficiently break different models trained on different datasets, e.g., 'WHY voted beyond' (FR = 40.4 for ALBERT trained on QNLI, FR = 45.9 for BERT trained on QNLI, FR = 40.9 for RoBERTa trained on MRPC), 'unsuitable improper whether' (FR = 37.5 for BERT trained on SST-2, FR = 34.7 on RoBERTa trained on SST-2, FR = 22.8 for ALBERT trained on MRPC). This can serve as evidence of the high generalizability of universal adversarial triggers." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "139" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.096, + 0.321, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.322, + 0.097, + 0.506, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.097, + 0.691, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.692, + 0.097, + 0.877, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.235, + 0.882, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The results of the ablation study with respect to the top- \\(k\\) and the beam size parameters on QNLI dataset." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.282, + 0.86, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
NBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank PRankNRank PRankNRank PRank
worst99.96also99.13fails99.70coming94.40neither
stupid99.87drama98.51devoid99.39foremost82.79failure
fails99.66definitely96.00failure98.90behalf81.14whether
poor99.48shows95.81whether97.22warmed28.42despite
neither99.35walk94.89unless94.21placement10.03considering
badly99.32ranks93.12irrelevant93.76irrelevant6.30because
crap98.91but86.00placement90.06unless5.91never
pacing97.94these84.96warmed71.65whether2.78despite
whether97.03wherein78.49behalf19.60failure1.11ball
every96.81weeks59.58foremost17.79devoid0.61notice
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.465, + 0.8, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: PMI for the joint training and validation set of SST-2, N - Negative, P - Positive" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.512, + 0.851, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
NBERTRankNALBERTRankNRoBERTa
Rank ERankRank ERankRank ERank
succeeded97.09never97.74ashamed95.06after99.48waves95.42fire
seeing95.94least96.50stumbling87.91under99.45aside95.42against
merits88.23killing96.19tire87.91because98.89harming88.06water
longest88.23prison95.58cutting77.42since98.27skepticism88.06health
feeling78.82much94.49declined76.26how97.70burns88.06pleaded
raped77.95welcome94.04boise70.31whether97.51survives88.06nothing
batting77.95behind93.65fury66.42should97.12votes76.46won
jail74.66born92.60slay55.80cost96.57justice70.62NATO
banning70.64needed92.26reactions52.67serious96.38ressing65.60suffering
backing70.64nothing91.30disapprove52.67guilty96.31deceived48.45happens
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.696, + 0.829, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: PMI for the joint training and validation set of MRPC, N – not equivalent, E – equivalent" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.743, + 0.842, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MRPC TriggerlQNLI TriggerlSST-2 Triggerl
A → Bthey ended and10preis much $100,0003unsuitable improper whether10
A → Rrostov she blushed1$100,000 what simulate2unsuitable improper whether10
B → Anothing pains kilograms1whichever thirds lithuanian9folding worse as5
B → Rsuffered sins declined11ibly semester longest8folding worse as5
R → AAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2decayingjuryNeither1
R → BAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2surprisingly refreshing lest11
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.874, + 0.884, + 0.903 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for model-to-model transferability results presented in Tab. 4 for ALBERT (A), BERT (B), RoBERTa (R), where \\( l \\) - the perturbed layer." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "140" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.085, + 0.849, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ALBERTBERTRoBERTa
TriggerlTriggerlTriggerl
M → Qnobody reminds austro8is blood corrupt9history doubtless beyond8
M → Sfailing forcing the4ching stiff punishments8history doubtless beyond8
Q → Mor widen further10whichever thirds lithuanian9WHY voted beyond2
Q → Strillion unless marylebone5ant trees romanized5wherein perished supra7
S → Munsuitable improper whether10seemed wiped whoever9Eating welcome respecting7
S → Qrenumbered littered neither8ogarily diminished4Crystal tasty ain9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.217, + 0.884, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for task-to-task transferability results presented in Tab. 5 for MRPC (M), QNLI (Q), SST-2 (S), where \\( l \\) - the perturbed layer." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.261, + 0.88, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelLFR Val.FR TestTrigger
UAT, BERT238.638.4neither nor
UAT, BERT435.435.0situation nonetheless resulted nor
Ours, ALBERT, q = 7, i = 4524.824.8regretted joyahbwv although doubted
Ours, ALBERT, q = 4, i = 8621.421.4tremendous despair towedtrue 1985, doubted
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.375, + 0.884, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: The examples of cases when a shorter-length trigger is more successful than a longer one. In both cases, triggers were fitted on MNLI." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.419, + 0.87, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetModelTriggers
MNLIALBERThamas doubted; neither motioned; i doubted pronoun; cursing neutron unless; transportation workers unless preferring;
BERTbut neither; remarkably neither; of neither nor; get neither outta even; backdrop but and neither; ft still maintained not whether
RoBERTaslideshow Show Neither; HELL Neither; THERE HAS NEVER; ohan Never nor; Fifa VERY NEVER Whether
MRPCALBERTunless if; whereas and; they ended and; unless stumbling out and; commerce corroborat declined and; and siblings live because
BERTagainst attempt; prepares worse conflicts; was priesthood killing contrary; each mortally duel harta; ring opposed her homosexuality
RoBERTaDrop until; actresses won awards; Enhanced Population Died Low; Harlem Recommended Submit BLM Question; hum DOWN burns firing Bloody Hyp
QNLIALBERTand 40%; averaged percentage; 88% finance 11%; vittorio whom relinquished; cristo, sharing whom reissued; downloadable bilingual why cancellation
BERTnine charities; carlos orient whom; whose reich declaring; gor german which emperor; maya commuted whose ballet
RoBERTanineteen countries; Nearly trillions trillion; Thousand hundred trillion; how MUCH mountains Cass; gui why sued awaits Reviews;
SST-2ALBERTflight unless; suck unnecessary; skidded irrelevant whether; failure placement unless; just whine worthless; fails subdistrict picture
BERTdegraded whether; dissatisfied neither; television failed whether; definitely worst wherein whoever; crap stupid feed whereby whether
RoBERTapowerfully refreshing; Beautiful enjoyable; surprisingly refreshing lest; Crystal importantly beautiful considering; thriller cool because whereas
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.868, + 0.884, + 0.914 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: WARNING: THE CONTENT OF THIS TABLE MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE, AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE AUTHORS' OPINION. The examples of LUATs depending on a dataset and a model. Triggers were selected manually from top-20 per length." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.515, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "141" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.169, + 0.553, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.212, + 0.696, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.255, + 0.669, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Grammarly for check spelling" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.696, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.298, + 0.489, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.321, + 0.147, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.345, + 0.53, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.389, + 0.779, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We used freely available models and dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.431, + 0.882, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.345, + 0.882, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.497, + 0.882, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We did not discuss the indented use of the models and datasets which we used, since these are the models and datasets are known to everyone and their use is free." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.538, + 0.882, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.587, + 0.694, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We did not collect any data, and we used only publicly available datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.613, + 0.882, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.646, + 0.882, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We did not collect any data. The documentation for the datasets and models which we are used are publicly available." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.687, + 0.882, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.769, + 0.165, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.793, + 0.494, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.816, + 0.147, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.84, + 0.882, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.875, + 0.165, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.878, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "142" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.118, + 0.26, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3, Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.884, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.193, + 0.26, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3, Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.268, + 0.165, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.883, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.375, + 0.25, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.45, + 0.25, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.476, + 0.884, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.525, + 0.25, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.55, + 0.875, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.567, + 0.25, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.593, + 0.881, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.627, + 0.25, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.488, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "143" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_origin.pdf b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfb74955897794d31fb4c35cdefc7d5717a46ff7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/6e17acd0-02c0-4f9f-8520-e21ab1c219b9_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9a4ce82f3ce1e577e973fcbb021e0249ec98797679af65d29af8ccda0d6c2b5d +size 532796 diff --git a/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/full.md b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fc4e0aecab565b49f7b31ce697d7b70e72a2483 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ +# Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models + +Olga Tsymboloi $^{1,2}$ , Danil Malaev $^{1}$ , Andrei Petrovskii $^{1}$ , and Ivan Oseledets $^{3,4}$ + +$^{1}$ Sber AI Lab, Moscow, Russia + +$^{2}$ Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia + +$^{3}$ Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia + +4Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (AIRI), Moscow, Russia + +tsimboy.oa@phystech.edu, m9255171362@gmail.com, andreypetrovskij@gmail.com + +i. oseledets@skoltech.ru + +# Abstract + +In this work, we examine the vulnerability of language models to universal adversarial triggers (UATs). We propose a new white-box approach to the construction of layerwise UATs (LUATs), which searches the triggers by perturbing hidden layers of a network. On the example of three transformer models and three datasets from the GLUE benchmark, we demonstrate that our method provides better transferability in a model-to-model setting with an average gain of $9.3\%$ in the fooling rate over the baseline. Moreover, we investigate triggers transferability in the task-to-task setting. Using small subsets from the datasets similar to the target tasks for choosing a perturbed layer, we show that LUATs are more efficient than vanilla UATs by $7.1\%$ in the fooling rate. + +# 1 Introduction + +One of the fundamental drawbacks of modern neural networks is their vulnerability to adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2014), imperceptible perturbations to the data samples that leave the ground truth label unchanged but are able to modify model prediction drastically. The samples obtained as the result of these perturbations are called adversarial examples. First discovered for image datasets (Szegedy et al., 2013), this phenomenon was then demonstrated for other types of data, including natural language (Papernot et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018). + +The originally proposed methods of adversarial attack construction were sample-dependent, which means that one can not apply the same perturbation to different dataset items and expect equal success. Sample-agnostic, or in other words, universal, adversarial perturbations (UAPs) were proposed in Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017), where based on a small subset of image data, the authors constructed perturbations leading to prediction change of $80 - 90\%$ (depending on the model) of samples. + +They also showed that UAPs discovered on one model could successfully fool another. + +The generalization of the universal attacks to natural language data was made by Wallace et al. (2019). Short additives (triggers) were inserted at the beginning of data samples, and then a search over the token space, in order to maximize the probability of the negative class on the chosen data subset, was performed. The found triggers turned out to be very efficient at fooling the model, repeating the success of UAPs proposed for images. + +The conventional way to look for adversarial examples is to perturb the output of a model. Considering image classification neural networks, Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018) proposed to search for perturbations to hidden layers by approximating the so-called $(p,q)$ -singular vectors (Boyd, 1974) of the corresponding Jacobian matrix. Then one can hope that the error will propagate through the whole network end, resulting in model prediction change. They showed that this approach allows obtaining a high fooling rate based on significantly smaller data subsets than those leveraged by Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017). + +In this paper, we aim to continue the investigation of neural networks' vulnerability to universal adversarial attacks in the case of natural language data. Inspired by the approach considered by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), we look for the perturbations to hidden layers of a model instead of the loss function. In order to avoid projection from embedding to discrete space, we use simplex parametrization of the search space (see, e.g. (Dong et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021)). We formulate the corresponding optimization problem and propose the algorithm for obtaining its approximate solution. On the example of three transformer models: BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), ALBERT (Lan et al., 2020) and three GLUE datasets (Wang et al., 2018) we demonstrate higher efficiency of our method over the original approach + +![](images/d62d146b3bef1502212e40b65ce8e37fb12a27de3f34821f6864c07ec980367d.jpg) +Figure 1: LUATs (ours): Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers. The algorithm scheme, where $\nabla F_l$ is defined in (8). + +of Wallace et al. (2019) in the setting of model-to-model and task-to-task transfer. We also show that in the case of direct attack application, our method demonstrates the results which are on par with the baseline, where perturbation of the loss function was realized. We hope that this technique will serve as a useful tool for discovering flaws and deepening our understanding of language neural networks. + +# 2 Framework + +Let $f: \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ be a text classification model defined for a dataset $\mathcal{D} = \{x_i, y_i\}_{i=1}^N$ , where $x_i$ is an input and $y_i$ is a corresponding label. Our goal is to find a small perturbation to the original input sequences that leads to a change in a model prediction for the maximum possible number of samples. Such perturbation could be modelled as an insertion of a trigger, a token sequence $t$ of small length $L$ , into a particular part of an input. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we call such text perturbations universal adversarial triggers (UATs). In this paper, we focus on triggers concatenated to the front of a sentence and denote a corrupted sample as $\hat{x} = t \oplus x$ . It is also important to note that, in contrast to Wallace et al. (2019), we consider the unsupervised scenario when an attacker does not have access to the labels. For evaluation we follow Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017) and use the fooling rate (FR): + +$$ +F R = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {\hat {x} = t \oplus x, x \in \mathcal {D}} [ f (x) \neq f (\hat {x}) ]. \tag {1} +$$ + +Universal adversarial triggers. Before we dive into the description of our approach, it is worth depicting the original method of UATs. Restricting themselves to the white-box setting, Wallace et al. (2019) showed that an efficient way to find UATs could be performed through the optimization of the + +first-order expected loss approximation: + +$$ +\max _ {t \in \mathcal {V} ^ {L}} \mathbb {E} _ {x, y \sim \mu} \langle \nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \mathcal {L} (t ^ {n} \oplus x, y), t - t ^ {n} \rangle , \tag {2} +$$ + +where $\mu$ is a distribution of input data, $t^n$ denotes the trigger found after the $n$ -th iteration, $\mathcal{V}$ stands for the token vocabulary and the initial trigger $t^0$ can be chosen as the $L$ -time repetition of the word "the". For simplicity, here (and below in similar situations), by $t$ , we mean its embedding if the gradient is taken with respect to it or if it appears as a term in a scalar product. + +In order to find the optimal perturbation within each iteration, the expectation in (2) is relaxed with the average over a batch, and maximization is performed for each trigger token independently: + +$$ +\max _ {t _ {j} \in \mathcal {V}} \sum_ {x, y \in \text {b a t c h}} \left\langle \nabla_ {t _ {j} ^ {n}} \mathcal {L} \left(t ^ {n} \oplus x, y\right), t _ {j} - t _ {j} ^ {n} \right\rangle , \tag {3} +$$ + +where $j$ is the token index. After solving (3), the next trigger $t^{n + 1}$ is selected via beam search over all the token positions. + +Our approach: layerwise universal adversarial triggers (LUATs). In (3), we face the optimization problem over a discrete set of tokens from the vocabulary $\mathcal{V}$ . To overcome this issue, let us relax (3) using the probability simplex model for every token. In this case, a trigger can be represented as $t = WV$ , where $V$ is a vocabulary matrix and $W_{mn}$ is a probability of the $n$ -th token from vocabulary to be selected at position $m$ . Then (3) can be rewritten as follows: + +$$ +\max _ {W \in \mathcal {S}} \sum_ {x, y \in \text {b a t c h}} \left\langle \nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \mathcal {L} \left(t ^ {n} \oplus x, y\right), W V - t ^ {n} \right\rangle , \tag {4} +$$ + +where $\mathcal{S} = \{W|W1 = 1,W\geq 0\}$ and $W\geq 0$ denotes an element-wise inequality. In this formulation, the search for the solution is done by performing optimization of the weights $W$ over the simplex $\mathcal{S}$ . + +Our approach can be seen as an extension of (4) to the perturbation of hidden layers. This is inspired by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), who applied this idea to find UAPs for fooling image classification neural networks. Given a layer $l$ , the optimization problem, in this case, can be similarly obtained via the Taylor expansion: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} l (\hat {x}) - l (\hat {x} ^ {n}) \approx J _ {l} (\hat {x} ^ {n}) (\hat {x} - \hat {x} ^ {n}) \\ \left\| l (\hat {x}) - l \left(\hat {x} ^ {n}\right)\right\| _ {q} ^ {q} \rightarrow \max _ {t \in \mathcal {V} ^ {L}}, \tag {5} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\hat{x}^n = t^n\oplus x$ $q$ is a hyperparameter to be fine-tuned and $J_{l}(x)$ is the Jacobian operator corresponding to a layer $l$ : + +$$ +J _ {l} (x) = \frac {\partial l (x)}{\partial x}. \tag {6} +$$ + +Bringing (4) and (5) together we obtain + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \max_{W\in \mathcal{S}}F_{l}(W) = \\ \max _ {W \in \mathcal {S}} \sum_ {x \in \text {b a t c h}} \| J _ {l} \left(t ^ {n} \oplus x\right) \left(W V - t ^ {n}\right) \| _ {q} ^ {q}. \tag {7} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +In contrast to (3), finding the optimal solution of (7) is computationally infeasible. Indeed, the problem (3) allows a brute-force approach for finding the optimal token for each trigger position since it requires computing the gradient only once for each iteration. On the other hand, in our case, a brute-force computation is very cumbersome since, for each iteration, it would require computing the Jacobian action for every batch, token candidate and position, resulting in $\mathcal{O}(LB|\mathcal{V}|)$ forward-backward passes, where $B$ is the number of batches in an iteration. Luckily, $F_{l}(W)$ is convex and can be lower bounded via a tangent line, where the gradient is calculated as follows: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \nabla F _ {l} (W) = \\ \sum_ {x \in \text {b a t c h}} J _ {l} ^ {\top} \left(\hat {x} ^ {n}\right) \psi_ {q} \left(J _ {l} \left(\hat {x} ^ {n}\right) \left(W V - t ^ {n}\right)\right) V ^ {\top}, \tag {8} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\psi_q(x) = \mathrm{sign}(x)|x|^{q - 1}$ . Therefore, our task is reduced to finding the solution to the linear problem with the simplicial constraint: + +$$ +\max _ {W \in S} \left\langle \nabla F _ {l} \left(W ^ {*}\right), W \right\rangle , \tag {9} +$$ + +where $\nabla F_l(W)$ is given by (8) and $W^{*}$ denotes the point where we perform the linear approximation. The final problem (9) has a closed-form solution + +(see the Appendix A for more details) and, as a result, we reduced the number of forward-backward computations to $\mathcal{O}(B)$ . + +Concerning the initialization of $W^{*}$ , we take the uniform distribution over all the vocabulary tokens for each token position in a trigger. Within each iteration, we perform only one step with respect to $W$ in order to reduce computation time and observe that it is sufficient for breaking the models efficiently. + +Finally, since the found after a given iteration weight matrix $W$ in the worst case has only one non-zero element per row (see Appendix A), we can get into a local maximum unless we guess the proper initialization. Therefore, similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), we perform a beam search over the top- $k$ candidates. In order to realize it, it is necessary to define the ranking criterion for choosing the best option at each search step. For this purpose, we use the FR. The overall algorithm is presented in Algorithm 1 and Fig. 1. + +Algorithm 1: LUATs: Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers + +Input: Dataset $\mathcal{D}$ ,victim model,tokenizer, $q$ layer to attack $l$ trigger length $L$ top- $k$ ,beam size $b$ + +Output: Trigger $t$ + +1 $t =$ tokenizer( the...the) L times +2 $W = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{V}|}\mathrm{ones}(L,|\mathcal{V}|)$ + +3 while FR increase do + +4 Sample batch $X$ +5 Compute $\nabla F_{l}(W)$ over batch +6 candidates $=$ Select indices of $k$ largest entries of $\nabla F_l(W)$ for each token position +7 $\begin{array}{r}t = \mathrm{BeamSearch}(\mathcal{D},\mathrm{candidates},b)\mathrm{to}\\ \mathrm{maximize~FR} \end{array}$ + +# 3 Experiments + +In this section, we present a numerical study of the proposed layerwise adversarial attack framework on text classification datasets. The code is publicly available on GitHub1. + +# 3.1 Setup + +Datasets. As in the work of Wang et al. (2021), we consider only a subset of tasks from the GLUE + +benchmark. In particular, we use SST-2 for the sentiment classification, MNLI (matched), QNLI, RTE for the natural language inference and MRPC as the paraphrase identification. We exclude CoLA, which task is to define whether the input is grammatically correct or not, and universal triggers are highly probable to change most of the ground-truth positive labels to negative. Finally, WNLI is not considered because it contains too few examples. We conduct our experiments using the validation set for attack fitting and the test set for evaluation. + +Models. We focus our consideration on three transformer models: BERT base, RoBERTa base and ALBERT base using the pre-trained weights from the TextAttack project (Morris et al., 2020) for most of the model-dataset cases. For some of them, the performance was unsatisfactory (all the models on MNLI, ALBERT on QNLI, RoBERTa on SST-2, RTE), and we fine-tuned them on the corresponding training sets (Mosin et al., 2023). To train our attack, we use existing GLUE datasets splits. The detailed statistics is presented in Tab. 1 + +Hyperparameters. In our experiments, we investigate the attack performance depending on the dataset, model, layer $l$ (from 0 to 11), trigger length $L \in \{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ and $q \in \{2,3,4,5,7,10\}$ . For each dataset, model and trigger length, we performed a grid search over $l$ and $q$ . The other parameters, such as top- $k$ and the beam size, remain fixed to the values obtained from the corresponding ablation study. In all experiments, we use a batch size of 128. Finally, we define the initialization of $W$ as the uniform distribution over the vocabulary tokens for each position in a trigger (see Algorithm 1). + +Token filtration and resegmentation. Transformers' vocabulary contains items such as symbols, special tokens and unused words, which are easily detected during the inference. To increase triggers' imperceptibility, we exclude them from the vocabulary matrix during optimization leaving only those which contain english letters or numbers. + +Another problem appears since a lot of tokens do not correspond to complete words but rather pieces of words (sub-words). As a result, if the first found token corresponds to a sub-word, one encounters the retokenization, meaning that, after converting the found trigger to string and back, the set of the tokens can change. Moreover, sometimes one has to deal with appearing symbols such as "##" in a trigger. In this case, we drop all the extra + +symbols and perform the retokenization. Luckily, it does not result in severe performance degradation. In the case when, due to the resegmentation, the length of a trigger changes, we report the result as for the length for which the attack training was performed. As an alternative to direct resegmentation, we tried to transform triggers by passing them through an MLM model, but this approach led to a more significant drop in performance. + +# 3.2 Main Results + +Comparison with the baseline. We perform a comparison of LUATs with untargeted UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). In order to stay in the unsupervised setting, we modify their approach by replacing the ground truth labels in the cross-entropy loss function with the class probabilities. As a result, we search for a trigger that maximizes the distance between model output distributions before and after the perturbation. In addition, as the criterion for choosing the best alternative in the beam search, we use FR for both methods. + +We perform the ablation study to estimate the dependence of FR on top- $k$ and the beam size. For the beam size 1, we measure both attacks' performance for different values of top- $k$ from 1 to 40. Then for the best top- $k$ , we build the dependence on the beam size from 1 to 5. We perform this study on the QNLI dataset. The results are presented in the Fig. 5. We stick to the top- $k$ 10 and the beam size 1 as a trade-off between high performance and low computational complexity. + +The grid search results are presented in Tab. 2, where for each model, dataset, and trigger length, we show the best results of both approaches. We performed the computation on four GPU's NVIDIA A100 of 80GB. To reduce the influence hyperparameters searching space cardinality (72 times more runs due to different values of $q$ and $L$ ), in Fig. 2, we present a time, averaged over 10 batches, per one iteration of both approaches. Indeed, for LUATs, we observe linear dependence on a layer, particularly 7.27 seconds on average versus 8.05 seconds for UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). The triggers obtained with the method of Wallace et al. (2019) took only 5 GPU hours; hence the execution time of the full grid search for LUATs could be estimated by 325 GPU hours. While the proposed method might be more efficient on average, high variance is explained by significantly different paddings in sampled batches. + +
DatasetValidationTest# ClassesBERT +Acc. Val. / TestRoBERTa +Acc. Val. / TestALBERT +Acc. Val. / Test
MRPC4081725287.7/84.490.4/87.289.7/86.0
QNLI54635463291.5/90.791.8/91.890.6/90.8
MNLI98159796384.2/83.786.5/86.383.8/83.5
SST-28721821292.4/93.394.0/94.992.7/91.7
RTE2773000272.6/67.680.5/74.076.0/72.2
+ +Table 1: Statistics of the considered classification datasets. We present datasets cardinality, the number of classes and model accuracy on both validation and test sets. + +![](images/0f92b1634bba732db34333fe2ccb6a0cb3cbff430f2fb7ab1a8e74c9a5f5f802.jpg) +Figure 2: The iteration average time for UAT and LUAT (ours) approaches. The results presented on the QNLI dataset with fixed $q = 10$ , $L = 3$ and a batch size of 128. Since, for the case of LUATs, the standard deviation does not change significantly, we report the value averaged over layers as $\overline{std}_{LUAT}$ . + +It is interesting to note that in some cases, shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Appendix A, Tab. 10). That is why we present the best performance for each length $L$ over all the lengths less or equal to $L$ . From Tab. 2, one can see that our method demonstrates the results, which are on par with Wallace et al. (2019). In Fig. 3, we present the dependence of FR on the trigger length $L$ . The attack performance saturates when it approaches 5 or 6, meaning that considering longer triggers would hardly bring any performance gain. + +Wallace et al. (2019) suggested that the efficiency of universal adversarial triggers can be explained by the existence of dataset biases, such as fallacious correlations between certain words and classes and supported this conjecture by computing pointwise mutual information (PMI) of vocabulary tokens and dataset classes + +$$ +\mathrm {P M I} (t o k e n, c l a s s) = \log {\frac {p (t o k e n , c l a s s)}{p (t o k e n) p (c l a s s)}}. +$$ + +As a result, they reported a high PMI rank for their tiggers tokens. In order to verify whether LUATs + +satisfy the same pattern, we perform this computation for our best triggers. We sample 5 best candidates obtained during the grid search for each trigger length and compute PMI rank with add-100 smoothing for their tokens. The results on $\mathrm{QNLI}^2$ (see the Tab. 3) demonstrate that similarly to UATs our trigger tokens have high PMI ranks. + +Dependence on $q$ and a layer. For the investigation of dependence on $q$ and a layer, we restrict ourselves to the datasets which appear to be the most vulnerable in our experiments: MRPC, QNLI and SST. The results are presented in Fig. 4, where we performed averaging over the lengths. One can conclude that, in general, it is more efficient to attack the higher layers. This observation can be interpreted with the idea which has been mentioned above; namely, that the efficiency of the triggers is caused by the existence of dataset biases. Indeed, as Merchant et al. (2020) demonstrated, fine-tuning for a downstream task primarily affects the higher layers of a model. Therefore, the bias which could be acquired due to fine-tuning should be accumulated in its higher layers. Since we try to fool a model with respect to a downstream task, the appearance of the higher layers among the most successful ones is more probable. Finally, it is interesting to note that the dependence on $q$ also demonstrates better results for the larger values, which is in accordance with the findings of Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018). + +Transferability: model-to-model. It was demonstrated that the universal triggers could be transferable between different models trained on the same task (Wallace et al., 2019). Here, we perform a comparison of their approach and ours with respect to this property. Similarly to the above consideration, the computations are carried out on MRPC, QNLI and SST-2 datasets, with an additional restriction on the trigger length $L = 3$ , which + +
ModelDatasetFR@1FR@2FR@3FR@4FR@5FR@6
WSWSWSWSWSWS
ALBERTMNLI18.514.825.817.025.818.534.821.134.824.834.824.8
MRPC11.44.527.628.947.954.866.664.166.667.067.667.6
QNLI26.437.547.548.150.550.850.551.552.252.452.552.4
RTE4.84.96.311.97.911.99.117.79.117.79.117.7
SST-221.029.734.838.845.546.447.948.550.648.750.648.7
BERTMNLI32.010.238.433.638.434.538.434.738.435.638.435.6
MRPC15.49.364.656.670.669.070.770.470.870.670.870.7
QNLI26.223.242.637.947.242.350.649.150.650.850.850.8
RTE4.74.26.66.77.18.57.610.27.610.211.210.2
SST-229.727.042.138.042.144.642.148.250.649.050.849
RoBERTaMNLI4.88.24.922.333.028.833.030.033.033.133.033.1
MRPC4.24.935.526.367.868.569.469.369.469.369.569.3
QNLI14.713.332.639.041.544.944.547.348.147.748.148.3
RTE3.16.36.113.66.113.68.013.68.016.39.216.3
SST-228.426.934.738.743.945.949.947.149.950.749.953.1
Average-16.315.030.030.538.438.941.541.542.742.943.143.2
+ +Table 2: Comparison between LUAT (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report the best FR on the test sets for triggers whose length does not exceed $L$ (FR@L). + +
EBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank NRankERank NRankERank N
emperor94.69either99.6070%98.95those99.02
berlin93.72legislation97.6010%96.10amount98.59
whose92.14can97.083,50093.82unless93.46
russian90.91ter95.3718%93.727192.72
cardinal90.25latitude93.8120%93.45nor92.46
orient89.83dalai92.04whose91.79where91.30
german89.03samurai90.5211%88.79besides90.62
korean87.77granting90.2454%88.34correlation88.56
fide84.10reich90.10supplemented86.34holds87.90
atop82.91banning88.4750%85.46waived87.12
+ +Table 3: PMI for the joint training and validation set of QNLI, E - Entailment, N - Not entailment + +
From/ToMRPC, W/SQNLI, W/SSST-2, W/S
ALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTa
ALBERT-22.8/53.533.9/69.1-45.6/36.139.0/38.1-30.6/37.524.2/34.7
BERT6.7/17.2-60.5/67.834.6/36.3-22.0/36.031.0/29.3-17.7/24.1
RoBERTa15.3/32.155.5/64.6-20.4/40.418.0/35.9-34.1/26.236.9/37.7-
+ +Table 4: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different models trained on a fixed dataset for the trigger length $L = 3$ . + +
From/ToALBERT, W/SBERT, W/SRoBERTa, W/S
MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2
MRPC-9.5/21.95.4/32.5-18.3/17.611.8/9.4-31.4/25.65.3/6.0
QNLI13.6/14.0-9.0/31.732.9/35.5-2.8/4.722.7/40.9-2.9/8.9
SST-28.6/22.831.3/36.0-29.7/64.827.5/21.2-18.1/13.914.0/15.9-
+ +Table 5: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different datasets for a fixed model and the trigger length $L = 3$ . + +![](images/8741eff88e760edfad7e356bb5fce19266c53c5a2f812e1d6424fdff66a005b4.jpg) +(a) SST. + +![](images/523584a8d66fc2490327651b6a7455450b9b1b6eaba111ffa7c873c5445c2aa7.jpg) +(b) MRPC. + +![](images/adebae7476479311c8566ab6778d9b0217ead495926e60619e7e2d7b77b53cab.jpg) +(c)QNLI. + +![](images/21d7690d8aae7e6ab04765aa41d0ab15081ba233933ed051f13e82866ae242de.jpg) +Figure 3: FR for optimal $q$ depending on the trigger length for the most vulnerable sets. The plots show FR saturation which is achieved for short enough triggers. + +![](images/4e242ee946e6802a8b85f3ffca244892a7a5437c2e05d75b58cf0aa3cfb8aeb5.jpg) +Figure 4: FR dependence on LUATs hyperperameters. The efficiency of our attack increases with $q$ and the layer number. + +![](images/b0ad7284148be2d5b378935b5df7ce1a96ba07828382af9bdbec048eef0c1902.jpg) + +is done for simplicity. In this setting, we suppose that an attacker has access to the data and also to the input and output of an attacked model. When transferring the UATs, the best trigger obtained with a source model is taken and then applied directly to a target model on a test set. For LUATs, however, one can come up with a better way. Since a target model is different from a source one, it is not necessary that the same values of $q$ and $l$ would provide the best pick for the transfer. Therefore, since an attacker has access to the forward pass of a target model, we evaluate with it the fooling rate of the best triggers found for each value of $q$ and $l$ on a validation set and then apply the best option to a test set to get the final score. For simplicity, we fix $q = 10$ , which according to the Fig. 4, is the best alternative on average. The final results are presented in the Tab. 4. One can see that in most cases, we outperform the UATs with an average gain of $9.3\%$ . + +Transferability: task-to-task. The fact that the universal triggers can generalize to other models trained on the same task seems natural since, in this case, it is highly probable that a source and a target model would acquire the same biases. A + +more complicated situation is when one tries to transfer triggers between different tasks. In this setting, an attacker looks for more fundamental task-independent flaws of a model, which can be explained, e.g., by a bias appearing during the pretraining phase. In order to examine this capacity of the triggers, we perform their transferring between different datasets for each of the considered models. For measuring the performance of the UATs, as in the previous case, the best trigger obtained on a source task is transferred. On the other hand, for the layerwise approach, one, under a reasonable assumption, can still suggest a natural way to choose the most appropriate for transfer trigger among the best triggers corresponding to different values of $q$ and $l$ . Namely, we suppose that although attackers do not have access to data on which a target model was trained, they know a task for which it was trained. It means that they know whether it is sentiment classification, paraphrase identification, etc. (Savchenko et al., 2020). If this is the case, they can generate data corresponding to the task of interest. In order to mimic such a situation, for each of the datasets (SST-2, MRPC, QNLI), we select an auxiliary dataset collected for the same task. + +The map is the following: SST-2 - IMDb (Maas et al., 2011), MRPC - PAWS (Zhang et al., 2019), QNLI - WikiQA (Yang et al., 2015). We sample subsets of sizes 64, 128, and 256 from the auxiliary datasets and consider them as the data generated by an attacker. Again, fixing $q = 10$ for simplicity, we evaluate the best trigger obtained for each layer on a corresponding auxiliary subset, performing inference on a target model. Herewith, each subset is sampled five times, and we report the average score for the size of 256, which appears to be the best option. The final results for both approaches are shown in the Tab. 5. Our approach demonstrates the average improvement of $7.1\%$ in fooling rate over the vanilla UATs. The reason for that might be related to the fact that if this kind of triggers (task-independent) is indeed related to the pretraining phase, in order to find them, one instead should perturb the lower or middle layers since the higher layers' weights can change a lot after fine-tuning. The LUATs which appear to be most successful at transferring are presented in the Tab. 8 and 9 of the Appendix B for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers correspondingly. + +# 4 Related Work + +There are already quite a few works devoted to the universal attack on NLP models in the literature. We briefly discuss them here. + +Ribeiro et al. (2018) proposed a sample-agnostic approach to generate adversarial examples in the case of NLP models by applying a semantics-preserving set of rules consisting of specific word substitutions. However, found rules were not completely universal, resulting in model prediction change only for $1\% - 4\%$ out of targeted samples. + +Similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), the realization of text adversarial attacks as short insertions to the input were proposed by Behjati et al. (2019). Though, they did not perform the search over the whole vocabulary for each word position in the trigger but instead exploited cosine-similarity projected gradient descent, which does not appear that efficient in the sense of attack performance. + +Adversarial triggers generated by the method proposed by Wallace et al. (2019) in general turned out to be semantically meaningless, which makes them easier to detect by defence systems. An attempt to make triggers more natural was undertaken by Song et al. (2021). Leveraging an adversarially regularized autoencoder (Zhao et al., 2018) + +to generate the triggers, they managed to improve their semantic meaning without significantly decreasing the attack efficiency. + +Another interesting direction is to minimize the amount of data needed for finding UAPs. Singla et al. (2022) created representatives of each class by minimizing the loss function linear approximation over the text sequences of a certain size. Afterwards, adversarial triggers were appended to these class representatives and the rest of the procedure followed Wallace et al. (2019). Although no data was used explicitly for training the attack, this approach demonstrated solid performance on considered datasets. + +# 5 Conclusion + +We present a new layerwise framework for the construction of universal adversarial attacks on NLP models. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we look for them in the form of triggers; however, in order to find the best attack, we do not perturb the loss function but neural network intermediate layers. We show that our approach demonstrates better performance when the triggers are transferred to different models and tasks. The latter might be related to the fact that in order to be transferred successfully between different datasets, a trigger should reflect network flaws that are task-independent. In this case, reducing the attack search to perturbation of the lower or middle layers might be more beneficial since the higher layers are highly influenced by fine-tuning. We hope this method will serve as a good tool for investigating the shortcomings of language models and improving our understanding of neural networks' intrinsic mechanisms. + +We would like to conclude by discussing the potential risks. As any type of technology, machine learning methods can be used for good and evil. In particular, adversarial attacks can be used for misleading released machine learning models. Nevertheless, we think that revealing the weaknesses of modern neural networks is very important for making them more secure in the future and also for being able to make conscious decisions when deploying them. + +# 6 Limitations and future work + +Our approach to universal text perturbations suffers from linguistic inconsistency, which makes them easier to detect. Therefore, as the next step of our research, it would be interesting to investigate + +the possibility of improving the naturalness of adversarial triggers without degradation of the attack performance in terms of the fooling rate. + +While the proposed approach outperforms the UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) in the transferability task, we should highlight that the additional hyperparameters adjustment plays a crucial role, and one could suggest validation procedure refinement for a more fair comparison. Also, for both direct and transferability settings, a more comprehensive range of models should be examined, including recurrent (Yuan et al., 2021) and transformer architectures, e.g., T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), XLNet (Yang et al., 2019), GPT family models (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). + +Another direction of improvement is related to the fact that sometimes the found triggers can change the ground truth label of samples they are concatenated to if, e.g., they contain words contradicting the true sense of a sentence. It would be interesting to analyze how often this happens and develop an approach to tackle this issue. + +Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the dependence of attack efficiency on the size of a training set and compare it with the so-called data-free approaches, such as the one proposed by Singla et al. (2022). + +# Acknowledgements + +The work was supported by Ministry of Science and Higher Education grant No. 075-10-2021-068. + +# References + +Melika Behjati, Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah, and Pascal Frossard. 2019. Universal adversarial attacks on text classifiers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7345-7349. IEEE. +David W Boyd. 1974. The power method for $l^p$ norms. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 9:95-101. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 33:1877-1901. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for + +Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xinshuai Dong, Anh Tuan Luu, Rongrong Ji, and Hong Liu. 2021. Towards robustness against natural language word substitutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13541. +Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In Proceedings of Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE. +Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2014. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572. +Chuan Guo, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Hervé Jégou, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Gradient-based adversarial attacks against text transformers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5747-5757, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Valentin Khrulkov and Ivan Oseledets. 2018. Art of singular vectors and universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8562-8570. IEEE. +Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). +Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2017. Deep text classification can be fooled. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08006. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Andrew Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL): Human language technologies, pages 142-150. +Amil Merchant, Elahe Rahimtoroghi, Ellie Pavlick, and Ian Tenney. 2020. What happens to BERT embeddings during fine-tuning? In Proceedings of the Third BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 33-44, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Alhussein Fawzi, Omar Fawzi, and Pascal Frossard. 2017. Universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1765-1773. +John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi. 2020. TextAttack: A framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 119-126. +Vladislav Mosin, Igor Samenko, Borislav Kozlovskii, Alexey Tikhonov, and Ivan P Yamshchikov. 2023. Fine-tuning transformers: Vocabulary transfer. Artificial Intelligence, page 103860. +Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 49-54. +Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551. +Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Semantically equivalent adversarial rules for debugging NLP models. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 856-865, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Andrey Savchenko, Anton Alekseev, Sejeong Kwon, Elena Tutubalina, Evgeny Myasnikov, and Sergey Nikolenko. 2020. Ad lingua: Text classification improves symbolism prediction in image advertisements. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conferences on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 1886-1892. +Yaman Kumar Singla, Swapnil Parekh, Somesh Singh, Changyou Chen, Balaji Krishnamurthy, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2022. MINIMAL: Mining models for universal adversarial triggers. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11330-11339. +Liwei Song, Xinwei Yu, Hsuan-Tung Peng, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2021. Universal adversarial attacks with natural triggers for text classification. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational + +Linguistics (ACL): Human Language Technologies, pages 3724-3733. ACL. +Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199. +Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2019. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2153-2162. +Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. ACL. +Boxin Wang, Chejian Xu, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jianfeng Gao, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Bo Li. 2021. Adversarial GLUE: A multitask benchmark for robustness evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeuriPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2). +Yi Yang, Wen-tau Yih, and Christopher Meek. 2015. WikiQA: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2013-2018, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 32. +Lifan Yuan, Yichi Zhang, Yangyi Chen, and Wei Wei. 2021. Bridge the gap between CV and NLP! A gradient-based textual adversarial attack framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15317. +Yuan Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Luheng He. 2019. PAWS: Paraphrase adversaries from word scrambling. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1298-1308, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Junbo Zhao, Yoon Kim, Kelly Zhang, Alexander Rush, and Yann LeCun. 2018. Adversarially regularized autoencoders. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 5902-5911. PMLR. + +# A Linear problem solution on $\mathcal{S}$ + +Let us consider the following linear problem with a cost matrix $C$ : + +$$ +\max _ {W \in \mathcal {S}} \langle C, W \rangle . +$$ + +We need to construct the Lagrangian $L$ and the consequent dual problem to obtain its solution. + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} L = - \operatorname {T r} ((C + M) ^ {\top} W) + \lambda^ {\top} (W 1 - 1) \\ = - \operatorname {T r} ((C + M - \lambda 1 ^ {\top}) ^ {\top} W) - \lambda^ {\top} 1 \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\lambda$ and $M$ are the Lagrange multipliers. From KKT conditions, we have: + +$$ +C + M - \lambda 1 ^ {\top} = O, +$$ + +$$ +M \geq 0, \quad M \cdot W = 0, \quad W 1 = 1, +$$ + +where $M \cdot W$ means elementwise multiplication. As a result, we obtain the following dual problem: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \max - \lambda^ {\top} 1, \\ s. t. - \lambda 1 ^ {\top} \leq - C. \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Under the assumption that each row of the cost matrix $C$ has a unique maximum, the closed-form solution will take the form: + +$$ +\lambda_ {i} = \max _ {j} C _ {i j}, \forall i, +$$ + +and the corresponding primal solution + +$$ +W = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} W _ {i j} = 1, j = \operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {j} C _ {i j} \forall i, \\ W _ {i j} = 0, \text {o t h e r w i s e}. \end{array} \right. +$$ + +Otherwise, if any row $i$ of $C$ violates the above assumption by having $k > 1$ maximal elements with indices $\{j_1,\ldots ,j_k\}$ , then + +$$ +W _ {i j} = \frac {1}{k}, \quad \forall k \in \{j _ {1}, \dots , j _ {k} \}. +$$ + +# B Tables and plots + +In this appendix, we present the results of + +- the ablation study on the top- $k$ and beam search parameters (see Fig. 5), +- the results of trigger analysis with PMI (see Tab. 6 and 7) for SST-2 and MRPC datasets, +- the LUATs which appear to be the best for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers (see Tab. 4 and 5), + +- the cases when shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Tab. 10), +- the examples of the top-20 obtained triggers. + +Concerning the transfer triggers, one can see that sometimes the same triggers efficiently break different models trained on different datasets, e.g., 'WHY voted beyond' (FR = 40.4 for ALBERT trained on QNLI, FR = 45.9 for BERT trained on QNLI, FR = 40.9 for RoBERTa trained on MRPC), 'unsuitable improper whether' (FR = 37.5 for BERT trained on SST-2, FR = 34.7 on RoBERTa trained on SST-2, FR = 22.8 for ALBERT trained on MRPC). This can serve as evidence of the high generalizability of universal adversarial triggers. + +![](images/ab723d25c7b2204bff2176a9a6e92e08af1861824e759434bf896b309030f73b.jpg) +Figure 5: The results of the ablation study with respect to the top- $k$ and the beam size parameters on QNLI dataset. + +![](images/093d5fc28d774c19b39a2162c6ef8025c937f7f0a43a797d82e429ef49ddfc9f.jpg) + +![](images/869e2c6e749d8e40066e25325ffef524a16b9db10bbc1f3cfa481b42efff59a5.jpg) + +![](images/a56f390b6d14f6e37e510e660fa30db55f593f45d7680bc0070d4700ba8c536e.jpg) + +
NBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank PRankNRank PRankNRank PRank
worst99.96also99.13fails99.70coming94.40neither
stupid99.87drama98.51devoid99.39foremost82.79failure
fails99.66definitely96.00failure98.90behalf81.14whether
poor99.48shows95.81whether97.22warmed28.42despite
neither99.35walk94.89unless94.21placement10.03considering
badly99.32ranks93.12irrelevant93.76irrelevant6.30because
crap98.91but86.00placement90.06unless5.91never
pacing97.94these84.96warmed71.65whether2.78despite
whether97.03wherein78.49behalf19.60failure1.11ball
every96.81weeks59.58foremost17.79devoid0.61notice
+ +Table 6: PMI for the joint training and validation set of SST-2, N - Negative, P - Positive + +
NBERTRankNALBERTRankNRoBERTa
Rank ERankRank ERankRank ERank
succeeded97.09never97.74ashamed95.06after99.48waves95.42fire
seeing95.94least96.50stumbling87.91under99.45aside95.42against
merits88.23killing96.19tire87.91because98.89harming88.06water
longest88.23prison95.58cutting77.42since98.27skepticism88.06health
feeling78.82much94.49declined76.26how97.70burns88.06pleaded
raped77.95welcome94.04boise70.31whether97.51survives88.06nothing
batting77.95behind93.65fury66.42should97.12votes76.46won
jail74.66born92.60slay55.80cost96.57justice70.62NATO
banning70.64needed92.26reactions52.67serious96.38ressing65.60suffering
backing70.64nothing91.30disapprove52.67guilty96.31deceived48.45happens
+ +Table 7: PMI for the joint training and validation set of MRPC, N – not equivalent, E – equivalent + +
MRPC TriggerlQNLI TriggerlSST-2 Triggerl
A → Bthey ended and10preis much $100,0003unsuitable improper whether10
A → Rrostov she blushed1$100,000 what simulate2unsuitable improper whether10
B → Anothing pains kilograms1whichever thirds lithuanian9folding worse as5
B → Rsuffered sins declined11ibly semester longest8folding worse as5
R → AAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2decayingjuryNeither1
R → BAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2surprisingly refreshing lest11
+ +Table 8: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for model-to-model transferability results presented in Tab. 4 for ALBERT (A), BERT (B), RoBERTa (R), where $l$ - the perturbed layer. + +
ALBERTBERTRoBERTa
TriggerlTriggerlTriggerl
M → Qnobody reminds austro8is blood corrupt9history doubtless beyond8
M → Sfailing forcing the4ching stiff punishments8history doubtless beyond8
Q → Mor widen further10whichever thirds lithuanian9WHY voted beyond2
Q → Strillion unless marylebone5ant trees romanized5wherein perished supra7
S → Munsuitable improper whether10seemed wiped whoever9Eating welcome respecting7
S → Qrenumbered littered neither8ogarily diminished4Crystal tasty ain9
+ +Table 9: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for task-to-task transferability results presented in Tab. 5 for MRPC (M), QNLI (Q), SST-2 (S), where $l$ - the perturbed layer. + +
ModelLFR Val.FR TestTrigger
UAT, BERT238.638.4neither nor
UAT, BERT435.435.0situation nonetheless resulted nor
Ours, ALBERT, q = 7, i = 4524.824.8regretted joyahbwv although doubted
Ours, ALBERT, q = 4, i = 8621.421.4tremendous despair towedtrue 1985, doubted
+ +Table 10: The examples of cases when a shorter-length trigger is more successful than a longer one. In both cases, triggers were fitted on MNLI. + +
DatasetModelTriggers
MNLIALBERThamas doubted; neither motioned; i doubted pronoun; cursing neutron unless; transportation workers unless preferring;
BERTbut neither; remarkably neither; of neither nor; get neither outta even; backdrop but and neither; ft still maintained not whether
RoBERTaslideshow Show Neither; HELL Neither; THERE HAS NEVER; ohan Never nor; Fifa VERY NEVER Whether
MRPCALBERTunless if; whereas and; they ended and; unless stumbling out and; commerce corroborat declined and; and siblings live because
BERTagainst attempt; prepares worse conflicts; was priesthood killing contrary; each mortally duel harta; ring opposed her homosexuality
RoBERTaDrop until; actresses won awards; Enhanced Population Died Low; Harlem Recommended Submit BLM Question; hum DOWN burns firing Bloody Hyp
QNLIALBERTand 40%; averaged percentage; 88% finance 11%; vittorio whom relinquished; cristo, sharing whom reissued; downloadable bilingual why cancellation
BERTnine charities; carlos orient whom; whose reich declaring; gor german which emperor; maya commuted whose ballet
RoBERTanineteen countries; Nearly trillions trillion; Thousand hundred trillion; how MUCH mountains Cass; gui why sued awaits Reviews;
SST-2ALBERTflight unless; suck unnecessary; skidded irrelevant whether; failure placement unless; just whine worthless; fails subdistrict picture
BERTdegraded whether; dissatisfied neither; television failed whether; definitely worst wherein whoever; crap stupid feed whereby whether
RoBERTapowerfully refreshing; Beautiful enjoyable; surprisingly refreshing lest; Crystal importantly beautiful considering; thriller cool because whereas
+ +Table 11: WARNING: THE CONTENT OF THIS TABLE MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE, AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE AUTHORS' OPINION. The examples of LUATs depending on a dataset and a model. Triggers were selected manually from top-20 per length. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6 +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 5 +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Grammarly for check spelling + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +3 + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3 +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We used freely available models and dataset +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +We did not discuss the indented use of the models and datasets which we used, since these are the models and datasets are known to everyone and their use is free. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +We did not collect any data, and we used only publicly available datasets. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +We did not collect any data. The documentation for the datasets and models which we are used are publicly available. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +3 + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +3 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +3 + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +3, Appendix B + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +3, Appendix B + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +3 + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/images.zip b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb329aa5e38f0c387e1a45ce91297e43a7ec8046 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4ce365bdd7dd84affaa26d810a03353fcc62c9a694a295fe55c8daaa76b43788 +size 1265519 diff --git a/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/layout.json b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..614461983ef3d05f4fa3f095afc63ad313e330b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11596 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 67, + 465, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 67, + 465, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 67, + 465, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Layerwise universal adversarial attack on NLP models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olga Tsymboloi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Danil Malaev" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Andrei Petrovskii" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and Ivan Oseledets" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 487, + 105 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3,4}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 114, + 374, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 114, + 374, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 114, + 374, + 127 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 114, + 374, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sber AI Lab, Moscow, Russia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 128, + 451, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 128, + 451, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 128, + 451, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 128, + 451, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 142, + 453, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 142, + 453, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 142, + 453, + 156 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 142, + 453, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 156, + 457, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 156, + 457, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 156, + 457, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (AIRI), Moscow, Russia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 171, + 522, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 171, + 522, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 171, + 522, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tsimboy.oa@phystech.edu, m9255171362@gmail.com, andreypetrovskij@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 185, + 369, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 185, + 369, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 185, + 369, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "i. oseledets@skoltech.ru" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we examine the vulnerability of language models to universal adversarial triggers (UATs). We propose a new white-box approach to the construction of layerwise UATs (LUATs), which searches the triggers by perturbing hidden layers of a network. On the example of three transformer models and three datasets from the GLUE benchmark, we demonstrate that our method provides better transferability in a model-to-model setting with an average gain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 441 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the fooling rate over the baseline. Moreover, we investigate triggers transferability in the task-to-task setting. Using small subsets from the datasets similar to the target tasks for choosing a perturbed layer, we show that LUATs are more efficient than vanilla UATs by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 441 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the fooling rate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 452, + 155, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 452, + 155, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 452, + 155, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One of the fundamental drawbacks of modern neural networks is their vulnerability to adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2014), imperceptible perturbations to the data samples that leave the ground truth label unchanged but are able to modify model prediction drastically. The samples obtained as the result of these perturbations are called adversarial examples. First discovered for image datasets (Szegedy et al., 2013), this phenomenon was then demonstrated for other types of data, including natural language (Papernot et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The originally proposed methods of adversarial attack construction were sample-dependent, which means that one can not apply the same perturbation to different dataset items and expect equal success. Sample-agnostic, or in other words, universal, adversarial perturbations (UAPs) were proposed in Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017), where based on a small subset of image data, the authors constructed perturbations leading to prediction change of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80 - 90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (depending on the model) of samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 524, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 524, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 524, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "They also showed that UAPs discovered on one model could successfully fool another." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The generalization of the universal attacks to natural language data was made by Wallace et al. (2019). Short additives (triggers) were inserted at the beginning of data samples, and then a search over the token space, in order to maximize the probability of the negative class on the chosen data subset, was performed. The found triggers turned out to be very efficient at fooling the model, repeating the success of UAPs proposed for images." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 526, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The conventional way to look for adversarial examples is to perturb the output of a model. Considering image classification neural networks, Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018) proposed to search for perturbations to hidden layers by approximating the so-called " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p,q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-singular vectors (Boyd, 1974) of the corresponding Jacobian matrix. Then one can hope that the error will propagate through the whole network end, resulting in model prediction change. They showed that this approach allows obtaining a high fooling rate based on significantly smaller data subsets than those leveraged by Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we aim to continue the investigation of neural networks' vulnerability to universal adversarial attacks in the case of natural language data. Inspired by the approach considered by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), we look for the perturbations to hidden layers of a model instead of the loss function. In order to avoid projection from embedding to discrete space, we use simplex parametrization of the search space (see, e.g. (Dong et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021)). We formulate the corresponding optimization problem and propose the algorithm for obtaining its approximate solution. On the example of three transformer models: BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), ALBERT (Lan et al., 2020) and three GLUE datasets (Wang et al., 2018) we demonstrate higher efficiency of our method over the original approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "129" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 795, + 452, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 795, + 452, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 795, + 452, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 129-143" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 517, + 153 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 517, + 153 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 517, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 517, + 153 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d62d146b3bef1502212e40b65ce8e37fb12a27de3f34821f6864c07ec980367d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 187 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: LUATs (ours): Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers. The algorithm scheme, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla F_l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined in (8)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 289, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of Wallace et al. (2019) in the setting of model-to-model and task-to-task transfer. We also show that in the case of direct attack application, our method demonstrates the results which are on par with the baseline, where perturbation of the loss function was realized. We hope that this technique will serve as a useful tool for discovering flaws and deepening our understanding of language neural networks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 149, + 359 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 149, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 149, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Framework" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f: \\mathcal{X} \\to \\mathcal{Y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be a text classification model defined for a dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D} = \\{x_i, y_i\\}_{i=1}^N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an input and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a corresponding label. Our goal is to find a small perturbation to the original input sequences that leads to a change in a model prediction for the maximum possible number of samples. Such perturbation could be modelled as an insertion of a trigger, a token sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of small length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", into a particular part of an input. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we call such text perturbations universal adversarial triggers (UATs). In this paper, we focus on triggers concatenated to the front of a sentence and denote a corrupted sample as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{x} = t \\oplus x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It is also important to note that, in contrast to Wallace et al. (2019), we consider the unsupervised scenario when an attacker does not have access to the labels. For evaluation we follow Moosavi-Dezfooli et al. (2017) and use the fooling rate (FR):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 643, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 643, + 289, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 643, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "F R = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {\\hat {x} = t \\oplus x, x \\in \\mathcal {D}} [ f (x) \\neq f (\\hat {x}) ]. \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "654c34306b8366e40ba9f8135b3d21b79980eb4637655894c01efc477def7738.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Universal adversarial triggers. Before we dive into the description of our approach, it is worth depicting the original method of UATs. Restricting themselves to the white-box setting, Wallace et al. (2019) showed that an efficient way to find UATs could be performed through the optimization of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 210, + 480, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 210, + 480, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 210, + 480, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "first-order expected loss approximation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 233, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 233, + 525, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 233, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\max _ {t \\in \\mathcal {V} ^ {L}} \\mathbb {E} _ {x, y \\sim \\mu} \\langle \\nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} (t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y), t - t ^ {n} \\rangle , \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "dc739c7ef42f7f96ef222982279037b93e01359133c7edd4046c3bc129f6d690.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a distribution of input data, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the trigger found after the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th iteration, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stands for the token vocabulary and the initial trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be chosen as the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-time repetition of the word \"the\". For simplicity, here (and below in similar situations), by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we mean its embedding if the gradient is taken with respect to it or if it appears as a term in a scalar product." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to find the optimal perturbation within each iteration, the expectation in (2) is relaxed with the average over a batch, and maximization is performed for each trigger token independently:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 447, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 447, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 447, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\max _ {t _ {j} \\in \\mathcal {V}} \\sum_ {x, y \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\left\\langle \\nabla_ {t _ {j} ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y\\right), t _ {j} - t _ {j} ^ {n} \\right\\rangle , \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "7a8250bc8ebb928a7f61c978bf23eb47922df35e17e6210ab1517c830e6b4822.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the token index. After solving (3), the next trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^{n + 1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is selected via beam search over all the token positions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach: layerwise universal adversarial triggers (LUATs). In (3), we face the optimization problem over a discrete set of tokens from the vocabulary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To overcome this issue, let us relax (3) using the probability simplex model for every token. In this case, a trigger can be represented as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = WV" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a vocabulary matrix and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{mn}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a probability of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th token from vocabulary to be selected at position " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then (3) can be rewritten as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 666, + 525, + 695 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 666, + 525, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 666, + 525, + 695 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\sum_ {x, y \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\left\\langle \\nabla_ {t ^ {n}} \\mathcal {L} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x, y\\right), W V - t ^ {n} \\right\\rangle , \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "9de685a30fdaf26e4360bddab5ef15b32a2a1007eece7b7fe5c0941fa07d77b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S} = \\{W|W1 = 1,W\\geq 0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W\\geq 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes an element-wise inequality. In this formulation, the search for the solution is done by performing optimization of the weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over the simplex " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "130" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach can be seen as an extension of (4) to the perturbation of hidden layers. This is inspired by Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018), who applied this idea to find UAPs for fooling image classification neural networks. Given a layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the optimization problem, in this case, can be similarly obtained via the Taylor expansion:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 177, + 289, + 214 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 177, + 289, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 177, + 289, + 214 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} l (\\hat {x}) - l (\\hat {x} ^ {n}) \\approx J _ {l} (\\hat {x} ^ {n}) (\\hat {x} - \\hat {x} ^ {n}) \\\\ \\left\\| l (\\hat {x}) - l \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right)\\right\\| _ {q} ^ {q} \\rightarrow \\max _ {t \\in \\mathcal {V} ^ {L}}, \\tag {5} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "2fff6b2fb6eb4491fb82b9940da8b3b7b41caba67e2281094bfe26b27437a227.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{x}^n = t^n\\oplus x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter to be fine-tuned and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J_{l}(x)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the Jacobian operator corresponding to a layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 274, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 274, + 290, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 274, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "J _ {l} (x) = \\frac {\\partial l (x)}{\\partial x}. \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "326d7303dcdeed12bc5214e4cf5e60dc89a4495d1fc6db94c964c0463b6d84db.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 310, + 244, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 310, + 244, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 310, + 244, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bringing (4) and (5) together we obtain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 333, + 289, + 383 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 333, + 289, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 333, + 289, + 383 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\max_{W\\in \\mathcal{S}}F_{l}(W) = \\\\ \\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\sum_ {x \\in \\text {b a t c h}} \\| J _ {l} \\left(t ^ {n} \\oplus x\\right) \\left(W V - t ^ {n}\\right) \\| _ {q} ^ {q}. \\tag {7} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "83cfa84176bef7f790029dbe81f2d975009b6b6bf65e1dd2bba135b2335934e4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast to (3), finding the optimal solution of (7) is computationally infeasible. Indeed, the problem (3) allows a brute-force approach for finding the optimal token for each trigger position since it requires computing the gradient only once for each iteration. On the other hand, in our case, a brute-force computation is very cumbersome since, for each iteration, it would require computing the Jacobian action for every batch, token candidate and position, resulting in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{O}(LB|\\mathcal{V}|)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " forward-backward passes, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of batches in an iteration. Luckily, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{l}(W)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is convex and can be lower bounded via a tangent line, where the gradient is calculated as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 594, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 594, + 289, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 594, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\nabla F _ {l} (W) = \\\\ \\sum_ {x \\in \\text {b a t c h}} J _ {l} ^ {\\top} \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right) \\psi_ {q} \\left(J _ {l} \\left(\\hat {x} ^ {n}\\right) \\left(W V - t ^ {n}\\right)\\right) V ^ {\\top}, \\tag {8} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "ace414882f4e0c3193bab972a369af4ab47dff9f69b5d560faf8ace7e3b48329.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_q(x) = \\mathrm{sign}(x)|x|^{q - 1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Therefore, our task is reduced to finding the solution to the linear problem with the simplicial constraint:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 702, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 702, + 290, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 702, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\max _ {W \\in S} \\left\\langle \\nabla F _ {l} \\left(W ^ {*}\\right), W \\right\\rangle , \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "0e978bb7fb891d2c6ac725df68b949f296176c590953a80c35a93d43b4a6464a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla F_l(W)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by (8) and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the point where we perform the linear approximation. The final problem (9) has a closed-form solution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(see the Appendix A for more details) and, as a result, we reduced the number of forward-backward computations to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{O}(B)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Concerning the initialization of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we take the uniform distribution over all the vocabulary tokens for each token position in a trigger. Within each iteration, we perform only one step with respect to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in order to reduce computation time and observe that it is sufficient for breaking the models efficiently." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, since the found after a given iteration weight matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the worst case has only one non-zero element per row (see Appendix A), we can get into a local maximum unless we guess the proper initialization. Therefore, similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), we perform a beam search over the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidates. In order to realize it, it is necessary to define the ranking criterion for choosing the best option at each search step. For this purpose, we use the FR. The overall algorithm is presented in Algorithm 1 and Fig. 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 368, + 497, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 368, + 497, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 368, + 497, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: LUATs: Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ,victim model,tokenizer, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layer to attack " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " trigger length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ,beam size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 396, + 506, + 436 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 437, + 398, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 437, + 398, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 437, + 398, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 437, + 398, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 450, + 427, + 491 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 450, + 427, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 450, + 427, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 450, + 427, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 450, + 427, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 450, + 427, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokenizer( the...the) L times" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 476, + 411, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 476, + 411, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 476, + 411, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 476, + 411, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W = \\frac{1}{|\\mathcal{V}|}\\mathrm{ones}(L,|\\mathcal{V}|)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 493, + 411, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 493, + 411, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 493, + 411, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 while FR increase do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 506, + 502, + 598 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 506, + 405, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 506, + 405, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 506, + 405, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Sample batch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 506, + 405, + 519 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 520, + 464, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 520, + 464, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 520, + 464, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Compute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 520, + 464, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla F_{l}(W)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 520, + 464, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over batch" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 candidates " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "=" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Select indices of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " largest entries of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla F_l(W)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 534, + 492, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each token position" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 575, + 502, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 575, + 502, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 575, + 502, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 575, + 502, + 598 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{r}t = \\mathrm{BeamSearch}(\\mathcal{D},\\mathrm{candidates},b)\\mathrm{to}\\\\ \\mathrm{maximize~FR} \\end{array}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 390, + 642 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 390, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 390, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 525, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present a numerical study of the proposed layerwise adversarial attack framework on text classification datasets. The code is publicly available on GitHub1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 711, + 358, + 724 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 711, + 358, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 711, + 358, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets. As in the work of Wang et al. (2021), we consider only a subset of tasks from the GLUE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 497, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 497, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 497, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 497, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/sb-ai-lab/nlp-layerwise-fooler" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "131" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "benchmark. In particular, we use SST-2 for the sentiment classification, MNLI (matched), QNLI, RTE for the natural language inference and MRPC as the paraphrase identification. We exclude CoLA, which task is to define whether the input is grammatically correct or not, and universal triggers are highly probable to change most of the ground-truth positive labels to negative. Finally, WNLI is not considered because it contains too few examples. We conduct our experiments using the validation set for attack fitting and the test set for evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 291, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models. We focus our consideration on three transformer models: BERT base, RoBERTa base and ALBERT base using the pre-trained weights from the TextAttack project (Morris et al., 2020) for most of the model-dataset cases. For some of them, the performance was unsatisfactory (all the models on MNLI, ALBERT on QNLI, RoBERTa on SST-2, RTE), and we fine-tuned them on the corresponding training sets (Mosin et al., 2023). To train our attack, we use existing GLUE datasets splits. The detailed statistics is presented in Tab. 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyperparameters. In our experiments, we investigate the attack performance depending on the dataset, model, layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (from 0 to 11), trigger length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L \\in \\{1,2,3,4,5,6\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q \\in \\{2,3,4,5,7,10\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For each dataset, model and trigger length, we performed a grid search over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The other parameters, such as top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the beam size, remain fixed to the values obtained from the corresponding ablation study. In all experiments, we use a batch size of 128. Finally, we define the initialization of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the uniform distribution over the vocabulary tokens for each position in a trigger (see Algorithm 1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Token filtration and resegmentation. Transformers' vocabulary contains items such as symbols, special tokens and unused words, which are easily detected during the inference. To increase triggers' imperceptibility, we exclude them from the vocabulary matrix during optimization leaving only those which contain english letters or numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another problem appears since a lot of tokens do not correspond to complete words but rather pieces of words (sub-words). As a result, if the first found token corresponds to a sub-word, one encounters the retokenization, meaning that, after converting the found trigger to string and back, the set of the tokens can change. Moreover, sometimes one has to deal with appearing symbols such as \"##\" in a trigger. In this case, we drop all the extra" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "symbols and perform the retokenization. Luckily, it does not result in severe performance degradation. In the case when, due to the resegmentation, the length of a trigger changes, we report the result as for the length for which the attack training was performed. As an alternative to direct resegmentation, we tried to transform triggers by passing them through an MLM model, but this approach led to a more significant drop in performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 208, + 393, + 220 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 208, + 393, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 208, + 393, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 228, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 228, + 526, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 228, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with the baseline. We perform a comparison of LUATs with untargeted UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). In order to stay in the unsupervised setting, we modify their approach by replacing the ground truth labels in the cross-entropy loss function with the class probabilities. As a result, we search for a trigger that maximizes the distance between model output distributions before and after the perturbation. In addition, as the criterion for choosing the best alternative in the beam search, we use FR for both methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform the ablation study to estimate the dependence of FR on top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the beam size. For the beam size 1, we measure both attacks' performance for different values of top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from 1 to 40. Then for the best top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we build the dependence on the beam size from 1 to 5. We perform this study on the QNLI dataset. The results are presented in the Fig. 5. We stick to the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 10 and the beam size 1 as a trade-off between high performance and low computational complexity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The grid search results are presented in Tab. 2, where for each model, dataset, and trigger length, we show the best results of both approaches. We performed the computation on four GPU's NVIDIA A100 of 80GB. To reduce the influence hyperparameters searching space cardinality (72 times more runs due to different values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), in Fig. 2, we present a time, averaged over 10 batches, per one iteration of both approaches. Indeed, for LUATs, we observe linear dependence on a layer, particularly 7.27 seconds on average versus 8.05 seconds for UATs of Wallace et al. (2019). The triggers obtained with the method of Wallace et al. (2019) took only 5 GPU hours; hence the execution time of the full grid search for LUATs could be estimated by 325 GPU hours. While the proposed method might be more efficient on average, high variance is explained by significantly different paddings in sampled batches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "132" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetValidationTest# ClassesBERT\nAcc. Val. / TestRoBERTa\nAcc. Val. / TestALBERT\nAcc. Val. / Test
MRPC4081725287.7/84.490.4/87.289.7/86.0
QNLI54635463291.5/90.791.8/91.890.6/90.8
MNLI98159796384.2/83.786.5/86.383.8/83.5
SST-28721821292.4/93.394.0/94.992.7/91.7
RTE2773000272.6/67.680.5/74.076.0/72.2
", + "image_path": "2bcb19ec89229d9d99731189e10b15b3de31bcfa9cbfce2b29634ac2994cf7b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 192 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Statistics of the considered classification datasets. We present datasets cardinality, the number of classes and model accuracy on both validation and test sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 216, + 268, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 216, + 268, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 216, + 268, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 216, + 268, + 361 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0f92b1634bba732db34333fe2ccb6a0cb3cbff430f2fb7ab1a8e74c9a5f5f802.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The iteration average time for UAT and LUAT (ours) approaches. The results presented on the QNLI dataset with fixed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a batch size of 128. Since, for the case of LUATs, the standard deviation does not change significantly, we report the value averaged over layers as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\overline{std}_{LUAT}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is interesting to note that in some cases, shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Appendix A, Tab. 10). That is why we present the best performance for each length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over all the lengths less or equal to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". From Tab. 2, one can see that our method demonstrates the results, which are on par with Wallace et al. (2019). In Fig. 3, we present the dependence of FR on the trigger length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 289, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The attack performance saturates when it approaches 5 or 6, meaning that considering longer triggers would hardly bring any performance gain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 289, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 289, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 289, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wallace et al. (2019) suggested that the efficiency of universal adversarial triggers can be explained by the existence of dataset biases, such as fallacious correlations between certain words and classes and supported this conjecture by computing pointwise mutual information (PMI) of vocabulary tokens and dataset classes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 713, + 279, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 713, + 279, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 713, + 279, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm {P M I} (t o k e n, c l a s s) = \\log {\\frac {p (t o k e n , c l a s s)}{p (t o k e n) p (c l a s s)}}.", + "image_path": "8fffc5e7703dd99605714690e6b7a691bdcccfe31472c1df13ebd1efd8b7840e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As a result, they reported a high PMI rank for their tiggers tokens. In order to verify whether LUATs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 525, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 525, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 525, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "satisfy the same pattern, we perform this computation for our best triggers. We sample 5 best candidates obtained during the grid search for each trigger length and compute PMI rank with add-100 smoothing for their tokens. The results on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 525, + 308 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{QNLI}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 525, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (see the Tab. 3) demonstrate that similarly to UATs our trigger tokens have high PMI ranks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dependence on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a layer. For the investigation of dependence on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a layer, we restrict ourselves to the datasets which appear to be the most vulnerable in our experiments: MRPC, QNLI and SST. The results are presented in Fig. 4, where we performed averaging over the lengths. One can conclude that, in general, it is more efficient to attack the higher layers. This observation can be interpreted with the idea which has been mentioned above; namely, that the efficiency of the triggers is caused by the existence of dataset biases. Indeed, as Merchant et al. (2020) demonstrated, fine-tuning for a downstream task primarily affects the higher layers of a model. Therefore, the bias which could be acquired due to fine-tuning should be accumulated in its higher layers. Since we try to fool a model with respect to a downstream task, the appearance of the higher layers among the most successful ones is more probable. Finally, it is interesting to note that the dependence on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " also demonstrates better results for the larger values, which is in accordance with the findings of Khrulkov and Oseledets (2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 524, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 524, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 524, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transferability: model-to-model. It was demonstrated that the universal triggers could be transferable between different models trained on the same task (Wallace et al., 2019). Here, we perform a comparison of their approach and ours with respect to this property. Similarly to the above consideration, the computations are carried out on MRPC, QNLI and SST-2 datasets, with an additional restriction on the trigger length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 524, + 742 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 524, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2The results on SST-2 and MRPC are presented in the Appendix B on the Tab. 6 and 7" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "133" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 74, + 506, + 303 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 74, + 506, + 303 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 74, + 506, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 74, + 506, + 303 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelDatasetFR@1FR@2FR@3FR@4FR@5FR@6
WSWSWSWSWSWS
ALBERTMNLI18.514.825.817.025.818.534.821.134.824.834.824.8
MRPC11.44.527.628.947.954.866.664.166.667.067.667.6
QNLI26.437.547.548.150.550.850.551.552.252.452.552.4
RTE4.84.96.311.97.911.99.117.79.117.79.117.7
SST-221.029.734.838.845.546.447.948.550.648.750.648.7
BERTMNLI32.010.238.433.638.434.538.434.738.435.638.435.6
MRPC15.49.364.656.670.669.070.770.470.870.670.870.7
QNLI26.223.242.637.947.242.350.649.150.650.850.850.8
RTE4.74.26.66.77.18.57.610.27.610.211.210.2
SST-229.727.042.138.042.144.642.148.250.649.050.849
RoBERTaMNLI4.88.24.922.333.028.833.030.033.033.133.033.1
MRPC4.24.935.526.367.868.569.469.369.469.369.569.3
QNLI14.713.332.639.041.544.944.547.348.147.748.148.3
RTE3.16.36.113.66.113.68.013.68.016.39.216.3
SST-228.426.934.738.743.945.949.947.149.950.749.953.1
Average-16.315.030.030.538.438.941.541.542.742.943.143.2
", + "image_path": "e963d82eb662da8ca60f84a28690da933bade13747dc5af8817f192a3e00ac31.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 354, + 520, + 501 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 525, + 337 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 525, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison between LUAT (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report the best FR on the test sets for triggers whose length does not exceed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (FR@L)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 354, + 520, + 501 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 354, + 520, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 354, + 520, + 501 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
EBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank NRankERank NRankERank N
emperor94.69either99.6070%98.95those99.02
berlin93.72legislation97.6010%96.10amount98.59
whose92.14can97.083,50093.82unless93.46
russian90.91ter95.3718%93.727192.72
cardinal90.25latitude93.8120%93.45nor92.46
orient89.83dalai92.04whose91.79where91.30
german89.03samurai90.5211%88.79besides90.62
korean87.77granting90.2454%88.34correlation88.56
fide84.10reich90.10supplemented86.34holds87.90
atop82.91banning88.4750%85.46waived87.12
", + "image_path": "340426ae5d70a0a5c4de9b2f233e55bdc87638c29a2440e2c6b34db42d1c26dd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 540, + 520, + 610 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 509, + 494, + 522 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 509, + 494, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 509, + 494, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: PMI for the joint training and validation set of QNLI, E - Entailment, N - Not entailment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 540, + 520, + 610 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 540, + 520, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 540, + 520, + 610 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
From/ToMRPC, W/SQNLI, W/SSST-2, W/S
ALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTaALBERTBERTRoBERTa
ALBERT-22.8/53.533.9/69.1-45.6/36.139.0/38.1-30.6/37.524.2/34.7
BERT6.7/17.2-60.5/67.834.6/36.3-22.0/36.031.0/29.3-17.7/24.1
RoBERTa15.3/32.155.5/64.6-20.4/40.418.0/35.9-34.1/26.236.9/37.7-
", + "image_path": "cafdaeb26af8dfc53c5e039eaf72589ab109cb5f809738bd892c76101d56dacc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 661, + 505, + 730 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 525, + 643 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 525, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different models trained on a fixed dataset for the trigger length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 661, + 505, + 730 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 661, + 505, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 661, + 505, + 730 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
From/ToALBERT, W/SBERT, W/SRoBERTa, W/S
MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2MRPCQNLISST-2
MRPC-9.5/21.95.4/32.5-18.3/17.611.8/9.4-31.4/25.65.3/6.0
QNLI13.6/14.0-9.0/31.732.9/35.5-2.8/4.722.7/40.9-2.9/8.9
SST-28.6/22.831.3/36.0-29.7/64.827.5/21.2-18.1/13.914.0/15.9-
", + "image_path": "63fcac3cf3ed8af71e62fdf04cfb65c2f706d85bd2b05827d638c3ad3391eca5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 525, + 763 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 525, + 763 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 525, + 763 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Transferability comparison between LUATs (S) and UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) (W). We report FR after performing the attack transfer between different datasets for a fixed model and the trigger length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 525, + 763 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 525, + 763 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "134" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 217, + 177 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 217, + 177 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 217, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 217, + 177 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8741eff88e760edfad7e356bb5fce19266c53c5a2f812e1d6424fdff66a005b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 184, + 158, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 184, + 158, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 184, + 158, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) SST." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 224, + 69, + 369, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 224, + 69, + 369, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 224, + 69, + 369, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 224, + 69, + 369, + 178 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "523584a8d66fc2490327651b6a7455450b9b1b6eaba111ffa7c873c5445c2aa7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 276, + 184, + 317, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 276, + 184, + 317, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 276, + 184, + 317, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) MRPC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 379, + 69, + 524, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 69, + 524, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 69, + 524, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 69, + 524, + 178 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "adebae7476479311c8566ab6778d9b0217ead495926e60619e7e2d7b77b53cab.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 184, + 468, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 184, + 468, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 184, + 468, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c)QNLI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 244, + 211, + 364 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 203, + 524, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 203, + 524, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 203, + 524, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: FR for optimal " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 203, + 524, + 228 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 203, + 524, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " depending on the trigger length for the most vulnerable sets. The plots show FR saturation which is achieved for short enough triggers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 244, + 211, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 244, + 211, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 244, + 211, + 364 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "21d7690d8aae7e6ab04765aa41d0ab15081ba233933ed051f13e82866ae242de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 230, + 244, + 365, + 364 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 244, + 365, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 244, + 365, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 244, + 365, + 364 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4e242ee946e6802a8b85f3ffca244892a7a5437c2e05d75b58cf0aa3cfb8aeb5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 525, + 401 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: FR dependence on LUATs hyperperameters. The efficiency of our attack increases with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the layer number." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 384, + 244, + 520, + 364 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 244, + 520, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 244, + 520, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 244, + 520, + 364 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b0ad7284148be2d5b378935b5df7ce1a96ba07828382af9bdbec048eef0c1902.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is done for simplicity. In this setting, we suppose that an attacker has access to the data and also to the input and output of an attacked model. When transferring the UATs, the best trigger obtained with a source model is taken and then applied directly to a target model on a test set. For LUATs, however, one can come up with a better way. Since a target model is different from a source one, it is not necessary that the same values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " would provide the best pick for the transfer. Therefore, since an attacker has access to the forward pass of a target model, we evaluate with it the fooling rate of the best triggers found for each value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on a validation set and then apply the best option to a test set to get the final score. For simplicity, we fix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which according to the Fig. 4, is the best alternative on average. The final results are presented in the Tab. 4. One can see that in most cases, we outperform the UATs with an average gain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transferability: task-to-task. The fact that the universal triggers can generalize to other models trained on the same task seems natural since, in this case, it is highly probable that a source and a target model would acquire the same biases. A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 526, + 762 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "more complicated situation is when one tries to transfer triggers between different tasks. In this setting, an attacker looks for more fundamental task-independent flaws of a model, which can be explained, e.g., by a bias appearing during the pretraining phase. In order to examine this capacity of the triggers, we perform their transferring between different datasets for each of the considered models. For measuring the performance of the UATs, as in the previous case, the best trigger obtained on a source task is transferred. On the other hand, for the layerwise approach, one, under a reasonable assumption, can still suggest a natural way to choose the most appropriate for transfer trigger among the best triggers corresponding to different values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Namely, we suppose that although attackers do not have access to data on which a target model was trained, they know a task for which it was trained. It means that they know whether it is sentiment classification, paraphrase identification, etc. (Savchenko et al., 2020). If this is the case, they can generate data corresponding to the task of interest. In order to mimic such a situation, for each of the datasets (SST-2, MRPC, QNLI), we select an auxiliary dataset collected for the same task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "135" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The map is the following: SST-2 - IMDb (Maas et al., 2011), MRPC - PAWS (Zhang et al., 2019), QNLI - WikiQA (Yang et al., 2015). We sample subsets of sizes 64, 128, and 256 from the auxiliary datasets and consider them as the data generated by an attacker. Again, fixing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for simplicity, we evaluate the best trigger obtained for each layer on a corresponding auxiliary subset, performing inference on a target model. Herewith, each subset is sampled five times, and we report the average score for the size of 256, which appears to be the best option. The final results for both approaches are shown in the Tab. 5. Our approach demonstrates the average improvement of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in fooling rate over the vanilla UATs. The reason for that might be related to the fact that if this kind of triggers (task-independent) is indeed related to the pretraining phase, in order to find them, one instead should perturb the lower or middle layers since the higher layers' weights can change a lot after fine-tuning. The LUATs which appear to be most successful at transferring are presented in the Tab. 8 and 9 of the Appendix B for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers correspondingly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 409, + 159, + 421 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 409, + 159, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 409, + 159, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are already quite a few works devoted to the universal attack on NLP models in the literature. We briefly discuss them here." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 289, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ribeiro et al. (2018) proposed a sample-agnostic approach to generate adversarial examples in the case of NLP models by applying a semantics-preserving set of rules consisting of specific word substitutions. However, found rules were not completely universal, resulting in model prediction change only for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\% - 4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " out of targeted samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 289, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similarly to Wallace et al. (2019), the realization of text adversarial attacks as short insertions to the input were proposed by Behjati et al. (2019). Though, they did not perform the search over the whole vocabulary for each word position in the trigger but instead exploited cosine-similarity projected gradient descent, which does not appear that efficient in the sense of attack performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 678, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 678, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 678, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adversarial triggers generated by the method proposed by Wallace et al. (2019) in general turned out to be semantically meaningless, which makes them easier to detect by defence systems. An attempt to make triggers more natural was undertaken by Song et al. (2021). Leveraging an adversarially regularized autoencoder (Zhao et al., 2018)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to generate the triggers, they managed to improve their semantic meaning without significantly decreasing the attack efficiency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 112, + 524, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 112, + 524, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 112, + 524, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another interesting direction is to minimize the amount of data needed for finding UAPs. Singla et al. (2022) created representatives of each class by minimizing the loss function linear approximation over the text sequences of a certain size. Afterwards, adversarial triggers were appended to these class representatives and the rest of the procedure followed Wallace et al. (2019). Although no data was used explicitly for training the attack, this approach demonstrated solid performance on considered datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 272, + 380, + 284 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 272, + 380, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 272, + 380, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 294, + 524, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 294, + 524, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 294, + 524, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a new layerwise framework for the construction of universal adversarial attacks on NLP models. Following Wallace et al. (2019), we look for them in the form of triggers; however, in order to find the best attack, we do not perturb the loss function but neural network intermediate layers. We show that our approach demonstrates better performance when the triggers are transferred to different models and tasks. The latter might be related to the fact that in order to be transferred successfully between different datasets, a trigger should reflect network flaws that are task-independent. In this case, reducing the attack search to perturbation of the lower or middle layers might be more beneficial since the higher layers are highly influenced by fine-tuning. We hope this method will serve as a good tool for investigating the shortcomings of language models and improving our understanding of neural networks' intrinsic mechanisms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 551, + 524, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 551, + 524, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 551, + 524, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to conclude by discussing the potential risks. As any type of technology, machine learning methods can be used for good and evil. In particular, adversarial attacks can be used for misleading released machine learning models. Nevertheless, we think that revealing the weaknesses of modern neural networks is very important for making them more secure in the future and also for being able to make conscious decisions when deploying them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 698, + 468, + 709 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 698, + 468, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 698, + 468, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Limitations and future work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach to universal text perturbations suffers from linguistic inconsistency, which makes them easier to detect. Therefore, as the next step of our research, it would be interesting to investigate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "136" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the possibility of improving the naturalness of adversarial triggers without degradation of the attack performance in terms of the fooling rate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While the proposed approach outperforms the UATs of Wallace et al. (2019) in the transferability task, we should highlight that the additional hyperparameters adjustment plays a crucial role, and one could suggest validation procedure refinement for a more fair comparison. Also, for both direct and transferability settings, a more comprehensive range of models should be examined, including recurrent (Yuan et al., 2021) and transformer architectures, e.g., T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), XLNet (Yang et al., 2019), GPT family models (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another direction of improvement is related to the fact that sometimes the found triggers can change the ground truth label of samples they are concatenated to if, e.g., they contain words contradicting the true sense of a sentence. It would be interesting to analyze how often this happens and develop an approach to tackle this issue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the dependence of attack efficiency on the size of a training set and compare it with the so-called data-free approaches, such as the one proposed by Singla et al. (2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 170, + 460 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 170, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 170, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 291, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The work was supported by Ministry of Science and Higher Education grant No. 075-10-2021-068." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 127, + 530 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 127, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 127, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 603 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Melika Behjati, Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah, and Pascal Frossard. 2019. Universal adversarial attacks on text classifiers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7345-7349. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David W Boyd. 1974. The power method for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l^p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " norms. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 9:95-101." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinshuai Dong, Anh Tuan Luu, Rongrong Ji, and Hong Liu. 2021. Towards robustness against natural language word substitutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13541." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In Proceedings of Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2014. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chuan Guo, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Hervé Jégou, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Gradient-based adversarial attacks against text transformers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5747-5757, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 526, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Valentin Khrulkov and Ivan Oseledets. 2018. Art of singular vectors and universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8562-8570. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 525, + 503 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 525, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 525, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 525, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2017. Deep text classification can be fooled. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08006." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL): Human language technologies, pages 142-150." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amil Merchant, Elahe Rahimtoroghi, Ellie Pavlick, and Ian Tenney. 2020. What happens to BERT embeddings during fine-tuning? In Proceedings of the Third BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 33-44, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "137" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Alhussein Fawzi, Omar Fawzi, and Pascal Frossard. 2017. Universal adversarial perturbations. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1765-1773." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 214 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi. 2020. TextAttack: A framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 119-126." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 289, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 289, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 289, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vladislav Mosin, Igor Samenko, Borislav Kozlovskii, Alexey Tikhonov, and Ivan P Yamshchikov. 2023. Fine-tuning transformers: Vocabulary transfer. Artificial Intelligence, page 103860." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 289, + 332 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 289, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 289, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 49-54." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 289, + 385 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 289, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 289, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 289, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 289, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 289, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 469, + 289, + 546 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 469, + 289, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 469, + 289, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Semantically equivalent adversarial rules for debugging NLP models. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 856-865, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 289, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 289, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 289, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrey Savchenko, Anton Alekseev, Sejeong Kwon, Elena Tutubalina, Evgeny Myasnikov, and Sergey Nikolenko. 2020. Ad lingua: Text classification improves symbolism prediction in image advertisements. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conferences on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 1886-1892." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 289, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaman Kumar Singla, Swapnil Parekh, Somesh Singh, Changyou Chen, Balaji Krishnamurthy, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2022. MINIMAL: Mining models for universal adversarial triggers. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11330-11339." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Liwei Song, Xinwei Yu, Hsuan-Tung Peng, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2021. Universal adversarial attacks with natural triggers for text classification. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 755 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linguistics (ACL): Human Language Technologies, pages 3724-3733. ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 524, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2019. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing NLP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2153-2162." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 524, + 318 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 524, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 524, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 524, + 404 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 524, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 524, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Boxin Wang, Chejian Xu, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jianfeng Gao, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Bo Li. 2021. Adversarial GLUE: A multitask benchmark for robustness evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeuriPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 524, + 479 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 524, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 524, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Yang, Wen-tau Yih, and Christopher Meek. 2015. WikiQA: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2013-2018, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 524, + 543 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 524, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 524, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 524, + 595 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 524, + 595 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 524, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifan Yuan, Yichi Zhang, Yangyi Chen, and Wei Wei. 2021. Bridge the gap between CV and NLP! A gradient-based textual adversarial attack framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15317." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 603, + 524, + 692 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 603, + 524, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 603, + 524, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuan Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Luheng He. 2019. PAWS: Paraphrase adversaries from word scrambling. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1298-1308, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 700, + 524, + 755 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 700, + 524, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 700, + 524, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junbo Zhao, Yoon Kim, Kelly Zhang, Alexander Rush, and Yann LeCun. 2018. Adversarially regularized autoencoders. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 5902-5911. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "138" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 243, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 243, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 243, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Linear problem solution on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 243, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let us consider the following linear problem with a cost matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 132, + 211, + 152 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 132, + 211, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 132, + 211, + 152 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\max _ {W \\in \\mathcal {S}} \\langle C, W \\rangle .", + "image_path": "4c87ee28cdaa2f76df1e301770b4903a8a60328e21998ea4904181a799369ef0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 289, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 289, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 289, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We need to construct the Lagrangian " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 289, + 183 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 289, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the consequent dual problem to obtain its solution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 190, + 271, + 225 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 190, + 271, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 190, + 271, + 225 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} L = - \\operatorname {T r} ((C + M) ^ {\\top} W) + \\lambda^ {\\top} (W 1 - 1) \\\\ = - \\operatorname {T r} ((C + M - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top}) ^ {\\top} W) - \\lambda^ {\\top} 1 \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "2d66cb80746db827b6b9c0067379343f66af61d66bb300d30eb29f54027533f9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the Lagrange multipliers. From KKT conditions, we have:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 269, + 227, + 285 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 269, + 227, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 269, + 227, + 285 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "C + M - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top} = O,", + "image_path": "e1827aa02fc2cac9b5b5beaafd5c762710ee76ed4956c6246281958e00808302.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 287, + 258, + 302 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 287, + 258, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 287, + 258, + 302 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "M \\geq 0, \\quad M \\cdot W = 0, \\quad W 1 = 1,", + "image_path": "c75e36b4788347469a99296ff8e47cf7b19d724b53bbc003d50c52062d8be204.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M \\cdot W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means elementwise multiplication. As a result, we obtain the following dual problem:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 348, + 224, + 381 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 348, + 224, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 348, + 224, + 381 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\max - \\lambda^ {\\top} 1, \\\\ s. t. - \\lambda 1 ^ {\\top} \\leq - C. \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "b94ca06a30eb0eb46f808da292a85e1b66d9518707c510829036e601d76820ec.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Under the assumption that each row of the cost matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has a unique maximum, the closed-form solution will take the form:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 137, + 441, + 220, + 461 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 137, + 441, + 220, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 137, + 441, + 220, + 461 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_ {i} = \\max _ {j} C _ {i j}, \\forall i,", + "image_path": "26d27eb53cdcba73201323d9615ac4d1fc4f5001f59f203d496363513ac10e34.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 470, + 238, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 470, + 238, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 470, + 238, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and the corresponding primal solution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 492, + 259, + 527 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 492, + 259, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 492, + 259, + 527 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "W = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} W _ {i j} = 1, j = \\operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {j} C _ {i j} \\forall i, \\\\ W _ {i j} = 0, \\text {o t h e r w i s e}. \\end{array} \\right.", + "image_path": "b843a0b377072326324927f6549c3934a3f1170e222b1ae2fe3a9ed5e5eea888.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Otherwise, if any row " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " violates the above assumption by having " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k > 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " maximal elements with indices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{j_1,\\ldots ,j_k\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", then" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 584, + 249, + 610 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 584, + 249, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 584, + 249, + 610 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "W _ {i j} = \\frac {1}{k}, \\quad \\forall k \\in \\{j _ {1}, \\dots , j _ {k} \\}.", + "image_path": "8399376e40c4fd024d4f120a5fbf91b6e478e812b3f76ed1f1f7ceeac11aacd4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 617, + 174, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 617, + 174, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 617, + 174, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Tables and plots" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 639, + 265, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 639, + 265, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 639, + 265, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this appendix, we present the results of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 661, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 661, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 661, + 289, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 661, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- the ablation study on the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 661, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 661, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and beam search parameters (see Fig. 5)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 697, + 288, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 697, + 288, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 697, + 288, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- the results of trigger analysis with PMI (see Tab. 6 and 7) for SST-2 and MRPC datasets," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 733, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 733, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 733, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- the LUATs which appear to be the best for model-to-model and task-to-task transfers (see Tab. 4 and 5)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 524, + 120 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- the cases when shorter triggers appear to be better than longer ones (see Tab. 10)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 107, + 523, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 107, + 523, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 107, + 523, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- the examples of the top-20 obtained triggers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 525, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 525, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 525, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Concerning the transfer triggers, one can see that sometimes the same triggers efficiently break different models trained on different datasets, e.g., 'WHY voted beyond' (FR = 40.4 for ALBERT trained on QNLI, FR = 45.9 for BERT trained on QNLI, FR = 40.9 for RoBERTa trained on MRPC), 'unsuitable improper whether' (FR = 37.5 for BERT trained on SST-2, FR = 34.7 on RoBERTa trained on SST-2, FR = 22.8 for ALBERT trained on MRPC). This can serve as evidence of the high generalizability of universal adversarial triggers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "139" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 80, + 190, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 80, + 190, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 80, + 190, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 80, + 190, + 185 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ab723d25c7b2204bff2176a9a6e92e08af1861824e759434bf896b309030f73b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 524, + 210 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 524, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 524, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The results of the ablation study with respect to the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 524, + 210 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 524, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the beam size parameters on QNLI dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 81, + 301, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 81, + 301, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 81, + 301, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 81, + 301, + 185 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "093d5fc28d774c19b39a2162c6ef8025c937f7f0a43a797d82e429ef49ddfc9f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 301, + 81, + 411, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 81, + 411, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 81, + 411, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 81, + 411, + 185 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "869e2c6e749d8e40066e25325ffef524a16b9db10bbc1f3cfa481b42efff59a5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 411, + 81, + 521, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 411, + 81, + 521, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 411, + 81, + 521, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 411, + 81, + 521, + 185 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a56f390b6d14f6e37e510e660fa30db55f593f45d7680bc0070d4700ba8c536e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 237, + 511, + 384 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 237, + 511, + 384 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 237, + 511, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 237, + 511, + 384 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
NBERTALBERTRoBERTa
Rank PRankNRank PRankNRank PRank
worst99.96also99.13fails99.70coming94.40neither
stupid99.87drama98.51devoid99.39foremost82.79failure
fails99.66definitely96.00failure98.90behalf81.14whether
poor99.48shows95.81whether97.22warmed28.42despite
neither99.35walk94.89unless94.21placement10.03considering
badly99.32ranks93.12irrelevant93.76irrelevant6.30because
crap98.91but86.00placement90.06unless5.91never
pacing97.94these84.96warmed71.65whether2.78despite
whether97.03wherein78.49behalf19.60failure1.11ball
every96.81weeks59.58foremost17.79devoid0.61notice
", + "image_path": "605a1f1eb18eb64b08f9b02810d25cb92419818ad757595b5533ae28de012705.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 430, + 506, + 577 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 391, + 476, + 403 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 391, + 476, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 391, + 476, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: PMI for the joint training and validation set of SST-2, N - Negative, P - Positive" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 430, + 506, + 577 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 430, + 506, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 430, + 506, + 577 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
NBERTRankNALBERTRankNRoBERTa
Rank ERankRank ERankRank ERank
succeeded97.09never97.74ashamed95.06after99.48waves95.42fire
seeing95.94least96.50stumbling87.91under99.45aside95.42against
merits88.23killing96.19tire87.91because98.89harming88.06water
longest88.23prison95.58cutting77.42since98.27skepticism88.06health
feeling78.82much94.49declined76.26how97.70burns88.06pleaded
raped77.95welcome94.04boise70.31whether97.51survives88.06nothing
batting77.95behind93.65fury66.42should97.12votes76.46won
jail74.66born92.60slay55.80cost96.57justice70.62NATO
banning70.64needed92.26reactions52.67serious96.38ressing65.60suffering
backing70.64nothing91.30disapprove52.67guilty96.31deceived48.45happens
", + "image_path": "47664161e5586b2725dc9614589d7811905e6e6305ef56fd7ddd9857c4703bdf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 94, + 624, + 500, + 727 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 585, + 493, + 597 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 585, + 493, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 585, + 493, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: PMI for the joint training and validation set of MRPC, N – not equivalent, E – equivalent" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 624, + 500, + 727 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 624, + 500, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 624, + 500, + 727 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MRPC TriggerlQNLI TriggerlSST-2 Triggerl
A → Bthey ended and10preis much $100,0003unsuitable improper whether10
A → Rrostov she blushed1$100,000 what simulate2unsuitable improper whether10
B → Anothing pains kilograms1whichever thirds lithuanian9folding worse as5
B → Rsuffered sins declined11ibly semester longest8folding worse as5
R → AAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2decayingjuryNeither1
R → BAvoid water taps10WHY voted beyond2surprisingly refreshing lest11
", + "image_path": "da12badfec4001459c6ba41d1b6224b74630c08a69cd02b7d055945b656f6277.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 735, + 525, + 759 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 735, + 525, + 759 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 735, + 525, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for model-to-model transferability results presented in Tab. 4 for ALBERT (A), BERT (B), RoBERTa (R), where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 735, + 525, + 759 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 735, + 525, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " - the perturbed layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "140" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 505, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 505, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 505, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 505, + 174 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ALBERTBERTRoBERTa
TriggerlTriggerlTriggerl
M → Qnobody reminds austro8is blood corrupt9history doubtless beyond8
M → Sfailing forcing the4ching stiff punishments8history doubtless beyond8
Q → Mor widen further10whichever thirds lithuanian9WHY voted beyond2
Q → Strillion unless marylebone5ant trees romanized5wherein perished supra7
S → Munsuitable improper whether10seemed wiped whoever9Eating welcome respecting7
S → Qrenumbered littered neither8ogarily diminished4Crystal tasty ain9
", + "image_path": "456ef69f0daeaf82c4ffd11aca50d23252856ff4cf5d0e177e338703fc05e917.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 219, + 523, + 306 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 207 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: The best-performed trigger-layer pairs for task-to-task transferability results presented in Tab. 5 for MRPC (M), QNLI (Q), SST-2 (S), where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 207 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " - the perturbed layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 219, + 523, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 219, + 523, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 219, + 523, + 306 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelLFR Val.FR TestTrigger
UAT, BERT238.638.4neither nor
UAT, BERT435.435.0situation nonetheless resulted nor
Ours, ALBERT, q = 7, i = 4524.824.8regretted joyahbwv although doubted
Ours, ALBERT, q = 4, i = 8621.421.4tremendous despair towedtrue 1985, doubted
", + "image_path": "e17e23438e17c143090be869a33ca46e4b2b3db397bad60c32ce0232a6a892ae.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 352, + 517, + 722 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 525, + 339 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 525, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 525, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: The examples of cases when a shorter-length trigger is more successful than a longer one. In both cases, triggers were fitted on MNLI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 352, + 517, + 722 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 352, + 517, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 352, + 517, + 722 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetModelTriggers
MNLIALBERThamas doubted; neither motioned; i doubted pronoun; cursing neutron unless; transportation workers unless preferring;
BERTbut neither; remarkably neither; of neither nor; get neither outta even; backdrop but and neither; ft still maintained not whether
RoBERTaslideshow Show Neither; HELL Neither; THERE HAS NEVER; ohan Never nor; Fifa VERY NEVER Whether
MRPCALBERTunless if; whereas and; they ended and; unless stumbling out and; commerce corroborat declined and; and siblings live because
BERTagainst attempt; prepares worse conflicts; was priesthood killing contrary; each mortally duel harta; ring opposed her homosexuality
RoBERTaDrop until; actresses won awards; Enhanced Population Died Low; Harlem Recommended Submit BLM Question; hum DOWN burns firing Bloody Hyp
QNLIALBERTand 40%; averaged percentage; 88% finance 11%; vittorio whom relinquished; cristo, sharing whom reissued; downloadable bilingual why cancellation
BERTnine charities; carlos orient whom; whose reich declaring; gor german which emperor; maya commuted whose ballet
RoBERTanineteen countries; Nearly trillions trillion; Thousand hundred trillion; how MUCH mountains Cass; gui why sued awaits Reviews;
SST-2ALBERTflight unless; suck unnecessary; skidded irrelevant whether; failure placement unless; just whine worthless; fails subdistrict picture
BERTdegraded whether; dissatisfied neither; television failed whether; definitely worst wherein whoever; crap stupid feed whereby whether
RoBERTapowerfully refreshing; Beautiful enjoyable; surprisingly refreshing lest; Crystal importantly beautiful considering; thriller cool because whereas
", + "image_path": "b7f9b9e700ae19191761311d22c91052887ffef2d5c93d054c63c8e7bb212fc5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 525, + 768 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 525, + 768 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 525, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: WARNING: THE CONTENT OF THIS TABLE MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE, AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE AUTHORS' OPINION. The examples of LUATs depending on a dataset and a model. Triggers were selected manually from top-20 per length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 306, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 306, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 306, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "141" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 414, + 242 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 214, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 214, + 398, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 214, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Grammarly for check spelling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 250, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 250, + 290, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 250, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 269, + 87, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 269, + 87, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 269, + 87, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 290, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 290, + 315, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 290, + 315, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 290, + 315, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We used freely available models and dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 362, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 362, + 524, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 362, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 417, + 524, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 417, + 524, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 417, + 524, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We did not discuss the indented use of the models and datasets which we used, since these are the models and datasets are known to everyone and their use is free." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 452, + 524, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 452, + 524, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 452, + 524, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 493, + 412, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 493, + 412, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 493, + 412, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We did not collect any data, and we used only publicly available datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 515, + 524, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 515, + 524, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 515, + 524, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 543, + 524, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 543, + 524, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 543, + 524, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We did not collect any data. The documentation for the datasets and models which we are used are publicly available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 577, + 524, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 577, + 524, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 577, + 524, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 646, + 98, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 646, + 98, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 646, + 98, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 666, + 293, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 666, + 293, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 666, + 293, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 686, + 87, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 686, + 87, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 686, + 87, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 706, + 524, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 706, + 524, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 706, + 524, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 735, + 98, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 735, + 98, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 735, + 98, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 522, + 771 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 522, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 522, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "142" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 154, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 154, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 154, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3, Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 154, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 154, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 154, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3, Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 98, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 98, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 98, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 148, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "143" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_content_list.json b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78c91cd4cc3ce694ea58075d3e897abcc981d1f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2606 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learn to Not Link: Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 169, + 90, + 828, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fangwei Zhu $^{1,2}$ , Jifan Yu $^{1,2}$ , Hailong Jin $^{1,2}$ , Juanzi Li $^{1,2}$ , Lei Hou $^{1,2*}$ and Zhifang Sui $^{3}$", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 124, + 870, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ Dept. of Computer Sci.&Tech., BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China $^{2}$ KIRC, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Tsinghua University", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 143, + 848, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ MOE Key Lab of Computational Linguistics, Peking University {zfw19@mails.,yujf18@mails,jinhl15@mails.,lixuanzi@,houlei@}tsinghua.edu.cn {szf@}pku.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 175, + 880, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 342, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity linking models have achieved significant success via utilizing pretrained language models to capture semantic features. However, the NIL prediction problem, which aims to identify mentions without a corresponding entity in the knowledge base, has received insufficient attention. We categorize mentions linking to NIL into Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, and propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. NEL takes ambiguous entities as seeds, collects relevant mention context in the Wikipedia corpus, and ensures the presence of mentions linking to NIL by human annotation and entity masking. We conduct a series of experiments with the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder entity linking models, results show that both types of NIL mentions in training data have a significant influence on the accuracy of NIL prediction. Our code and dataset can be accessed at https://github.com/solitaryzero/NIL_EL.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 609, + 260, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity Linking (EL) aims to map entity mentions in free texts to their corresponding entities in a given Knowledge Base (KB). Entity linking acts as a bridge between unstructured text and structured knowledge, and benefits various downstream tasks like question answering (Luo et al., 2018) and knowledge extraction (Chen et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 637, + 489, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, not all entity mentions correspond to a specific entity in the KB that suits the mention context (Ling et al., 2015). Take Table 1 as an example, Peter Blackburn is actually a journalist, and the householder is a common phrase rather than an entity. These two mentions do not refer to any entity in the given KB. The identification of these mentions is referred to as NIL prediction. Therefore, to tackle NIL prediction, the entity linking model", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 750, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "needs to select mentions whose references are absent in KB, and link them to a special placeholder $\\text{NIL}$ . Dredze et al. (2010) states NIL prediction as one of the key issues in entity linking, which may lead to a decrease in the recall of entity linking systems. Meanwhile, the incorrectly linked entities may provide false information to downstream tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There have been some earlier representation learning based researches that take NIL prediction into consideration (Eshel et al., 2017; Lazic et al., 2015; Peters et al., 2019). They identify NIL mentions by setting a vector similarity threshold or viewing NIL as a special entity. Recently, pretrained language model (PLM) based models (Wu et al., 2020; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Cao et al., 2021) have achieved great success for their great transferability and expandability. However, these models generally assume that there always exists a correct entity for each mention in the knowledge base, which leaves the NIL prediction problem without adequate attention.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 382, + 884, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous entity linking datasets have paid insufficient attention to the NIL prediction problem. For example, some of the previous datasets like AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011) view it as an auxiliary task, while others like MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017) does not require NIL prediction at all. There does not yet exist a strong benchmark for the ability on NIL prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 611, + 885, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. About $30\\%$ of the mentions in NEL do not have their corresponding entity in the candidate entity set, which requires models to identify these mentions rather than linking them to the wrong candidates. In NEL construction, we take ambiguous entities as seeds, and build the dataset by mining mention contexts related to seed entities on the Wikipedia corpus. Then, human annotators are", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Corresponding Author", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 299, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10846", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 527, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10846-10860 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 778, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1a99c6ce58e4cb52fa62d5e9d169215736e0e7716ce4b9566108caf60b62e844.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Missing Entity
Mention ContextEU rejects German call to boycott British lamb. Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22
Peter Blackburn (Bishop)Peter Blackburn (d.1616) was a Scottish scholar and prelate. He was the second Protestant Bishop of Aberdeen.
Peter Blackburn (MP)Peter Blackburn (1811 – 20 May 1870) was a British Conservative Party politician.
Peter Blackburn (Badminton)Peter Grant Blackburn (born 25 March 1968) is an Australian badminton player who affiliated with the Ballarat Badminton Association.
Non-Entity Phrase
Mention ContextMost Hindus accept that there is a duty to have a family during the house-holder stage of life, as debt to family lineage called Pitra Rin (Father's Debt) and so are unlikely to avoid having children altogether ...
The Householder (Film)The Householder (Hindi title: Gharbar) is a 1963 film by Merchant Ivory Productions, with a screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala ...
The Householder (Novel)The Householder is a 1960 English-language novel by Ruth Prawer Jhab-vala ...
", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 80, + 823, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Example of mentions that should be linked to NIL and their potential candidate entities. Mentions are labeled as red.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 882, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "asked to identify whether the mentions correspond to a candidate entity or not, and we further perform entity masking to ensure a fair proportion of NIL data of about $30\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 487, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In NIL prediction, we propose to use the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder structures as the model backbone, and further integrate type information by adding an entity typing subtask. We combine semantic and type similarity as the final similarity score, and identify NIL mentions by setting a similarity threshold.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct a series of experiments on both NEL and previous entity linking datasets. Experimental results show that the models suffer from an accuracy drop when taking NIL prediction into consideration, indicating that the accuracy may be inflated without the NIL prediction task, and NEL could better diagnose the performance of different models. We also conducted ablation studies on how type information and NIL examples affect the models. We discover that the entity typing subtask yields better embedding even when type similarity is not used, and both types of NIL examples in training data would boost the ability of NIL prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 489, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions can be concluded as:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 822, + 423, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We categorize the NIL prediction problem into two patterns: Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, where the latter one has not received sufficient attention in previous works.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We propose an entity linking dataset NEL focusing on NIL prediction, which covers two patterns of NIL data and could act as a benchmark for diagnosing the ability of NIL prediction.", + "- We conducted a series of experiments, whose results demonstrate that the accuracy of models may be inflated when not taking NIL prediction into consideration. Meanwhile, both patterns of NIL data in training are essential for triggering the ability of NIL prediction." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 432, + 884, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Preliminary", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 653, + 648, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity mentions $M = \\{m_i\\}$ refer to text spans potentially corresponding to entities in a document $D = (w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_n)$ , where $w_i$ is either a plain token or a mention. Each mention $m_i$ may correspond to an entity $e_i \\in E$ in the entity set $E$ of knowledge base $\\mathcal{KB}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 680, + 884, + 777 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Definition 1. Entity linking aims to find an optimal mapping $\\Gamma : M \\Rightarrow E$ , which maps entity mentions $M = \\{m_i\\}$ to their corresponding entities $E = \\{e_i\\}$ , where $e_i \\in \\mathcal{KB}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 783, + 882, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The NIL prediction problem is to determine whether an entity mention $m$ is absent from the knowledge base $\\mathcal{KB}$ . When there does not exist a proper entity $e \\in \\mathcal{KB}$ for the given mention $m$ ,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10847", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6e37f93f68c99d676297e6099dddeae0ffc36f5d7c8fa5bda4d4f8b1ea8660ed.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: An illustration of how NEL is constructed. We select ambiguous entities as seeds, taking their alias as potential mentions to discover mention contexts from Wikipedia. The entries are annotated by human annotators, and entity masking is performed on some entries to control the portion of NIL data." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 166, + 93, + 836, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the model should link $m$ to a special NIL entity, indicating that the mention is unlinkable.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 487, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Definition 2. Entity linking with NIL prediction aims to find an optimal mapping $\\Gamma : M \\Rightarrow E \\cup \\{NIL\\}$ , where NIL is a special placeholder and $m$ correspond to NIL only when there is no correct answer in the candidate entity set $E$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 485, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As demonstrated in Table 1, there exist two situations in real-world entity linking where NIL prediction should be taken into consideration:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 554, + 489, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Missing Entity: The mention $m$ refers to certain entity $e$ that has not been yet included in $\\mathcal{KB}$ , i.e. $m \\Rightarrow e \\notin \\mathcal{KB}$ . For example, in the upper half of Table 1, the mention Peter Blackburn refers to a certain journalist, while entries in English Wikipedia include only people with other occupations, leading to the mention linking to NIL.", + "- Non-Entity Phrase: The mention $m$ refers to a common phrase that is not usually viewed as an entity, i.e. $m \\nRightarrow e$ . For example, the mention the householder in the lower half of Table 1 refers to a concept rather than a film or novel." + ], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 609, + 489, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Dataset Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 862, + 332, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There does not yet exist a strong benchmark on NIL prediction. We manually annotated 300 examples", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with their mentions linking to NIL from the widely used entity linking dataset AIDA1, and discover that about $10\\%$ of these mentions should actually link to an entity. For example, the mention \"EU\" in \"EU rejects German\" should be linked to the European Union rather than NIL (See Appendix D for details). Meanwhile, NIL mentions in AIDA fall mostly in the Missing Entity category. The incorrect and imbalanced data for NIL prediction indicates that the importance of NIL prediction is currently underestimated.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 435, + 882, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we propose an entity linking dataset named NEL, which focuses on the NIL prediction problem. The construction process is demonstrated in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 614, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike normal entity linking data, there does not exist annotated references for mentions linking to NIL, and the portion of NIL data in the text corpus is unknown. Hyperlinks in Wikipedia can be viewed as mentions linking to non-NIL entities, from which we can find the aliases of entities. We assume that when an alias does not appear as a hyperlink in a certain context, it may be identified as a mention linking to NIL. In this way, we collect such contexts as the raw data. The raw data is then annotated by humans to ensure correctness, and we further mask out some answer entities in the candidate set to control the percentage of NIL in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 680, + 884, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 903, + 539, + 912 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "10848", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/951bdfcf39f66e5a4110eb4f17884f074f7181408f2d812ac49f7014e5ad40b9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Dataset# DataAnnotatedNIL percentage%Missing Entity%Non-Entity Phrase
AIDA34956✓20.41%73%*10%*
MSNBC654✓0%--
WNED-Wiki240000×0%--
NEL (ours)9924✓33.57%17%83%
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 80, + 833, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Statistics of the NEL dataset compared with previous entity linking datasets. *The percentage of two NIL patterns in AIDA is calculated from 300 randomly sampled NIL data, and data with errors do not count as any pattern.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 185, + 884, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "answers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 255, + 183, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Data Collection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 282, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Levin (1977) states that the title of creative works could be a place, a personal name, or a certain abstract concept like the choric embodiment of some collectivity (The Clouds, The Birds) or stock types (The Alchemist, Le Misanthrope), which would naturally lead to the two situations where a mention links to NIL. The absence of the referenced entity from the KB would lead to Missing Entity, while an abstract concept not viewed as an entity would lead to Non-Entity Phrase.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 303, + 487, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To discover NIL mentions of both types, we start by taking entities that share an alias with other entities as seeds. We assume that a mention referring to multiple entities has a higher probability of linking to a Missing Entity outside the KB, and the complex meaning of the mention will lead to Non-Entity Phrase. Thus, the aliases of ambiguous seed entities would be good starting points for mining NIL mentions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity Selection We further filter ambiguous entities to remove low-quality seeds. First, we remove noise instances like template pages, and entities with less than 5 hyperlinks are also removed. Meanwhile, we discarded entities with a probability greater than $50\\%$ of being the linking result, as these entities can generally be considered to be unambiguous and lack difficulty. Finally, 1000 entities are sampled as the seed entity set $E_{s}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 619, + 489, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use a typing system based on Wikidata to identify the type of selected entities. We view the instance of relation as the type indicator, and utilize the subclass of relation to build a tree-form type system. The detailed type system can be found in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 765, + 487, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mention Discovery We build an alias table from the 2021 Wikipedia dump by extracting alias-entity pairs $(m,e)$ from internal hyperlinks. All alias", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$m$ related to entities in the seed entity set $E_{s}$ are gathered as the mention set $M$ . For each mention $m \\in M$ , we look for its occurrence throughout the Wikipedia corpus (whether it appears as a hyperlink or not) to obtain the entry tuple $(C_{l}, m, C_{r}, E_{m})$ , where $C_{l}$ and $C_{r}$ represent contexts left and right to the entity mention $m$ , and $E_{m}$ represents the candidate entities set of $m$ . For each mention $m$ , we sampled 5 entries where $m$ appears as a hyperlink and 5 entries where $m$ appears in plain text to balance the number of positive and negative examples, and a total of 10,000 entries are collected.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 254, + 884, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Human Annotation and Post-processing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 461, + 870, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform annotation on the above entries with 3 annotators. The annotators are provided with the mention context $(C_l, m, C_r)$ and candidate entities $E_m$ . Each candidate entity $e$ consists of its title, textual description, and Wikipedia URL. The annotators are asked to choose the answer entity $a \\in E_m$ corresponding to the mention $m$ , or $a = NIL$ if none of the candidates are correct.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 882, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An expert will further investigate entries in which annotators fail to reach a consensus. The expert is a senior annotator with essential knowledge of entity linking, and will confirm the final annotation result after carefully reading through the context and candidate entities. We use the annotation result as the final answer $a$ if there is an agreement between 3 annotators, and the entity chosen by the expert otherwise. The annotated tuple $(C_l,m,C_r,E_m,a)$ acts as the final entry of our dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 882, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further simulate the situation where new emerging entities do not appear in knowledge bases, we perform entity masking on positive entries. We randomly sample $10\\%$ entries where $a \\neq NIL$ , and mask the correct entity in the candidate set $E_{m}$ . In this case, as the correct answer is removed from the candidate list, we have $a = NIL$ , i.e. the mention $m$ corresponds to the empty entity NIL.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10849", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/187d4d5e1d3f165d1a370301599dc08dc9dc0509daa8512a564f8d0ea2efee08.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall structure of PLM-based retrieval models. Candidates which are confusing in the semantic space may be more distinguishable in the type space. Mentions linking to NIL frequently differ from their candidates in their types, so we combine semantic similarity with type similarity for NIL prediction." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 168, + 93, + 505, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/aad5c3b877f42419d4829cd65c3ad0ec9b9b506b272f43060a25e453af09d4b7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 93, + 826, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Dataset Statistics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 294, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 demonstrates the properties of the NEL dataset. NEL includes 6,593 positive examples and 3,331 negative examples, covering 1,000 mentions and 3,840 related entities. Each mention has an average of 3.80 candidate entities. The inter-annotator agreement of NEL is $94.61\\%$ , indicating that the expert calibrated about $5\\%$ of the data. The full dataset is split into train/validation/test sets by the ratio of $80\\%/10\\%/10\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 487, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NEL contains a fair number of entries, and is human-annotated to ensure correctness. Compared with previous entity linking datasets, NEL has a higher percentage of NIL data, which could better diagnose the ability of different models in NIL prediction. Meanwhile, mentions linking to NIL in AIDA mostly fall in the Missing Entity situation, while NEL focuses more on the Non-Entity Phrase situation, thus complementing the insufficient attention on Non-Entity Phrase in NIL prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Entity Linking with NIL prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 794, + 453, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A mention links to NIL when all of its candidate entities fail to match its context. A common paradigm of NIL prediction is to compute the similarity scores between the mention context and candidates, and judge its linking result on the base of similarities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Scoring Similarities", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 435, + 710, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bi-encoder and cross-encoder are widely adopted scorer structures, as they are well compatible with pretrained language models. Bi-encoder encodes mention contexts and entities into the same dense vector space, while cross-encoder views similarity scoring as a sequence classification task:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 455, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns _ {b i} (c, e) = \\sigma (f (c) \\cdot g (e)) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 565, + 882, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns _ {c r o s s} (c, e) = \\sigma (\\mathbf {W h} ([ c, e ]) + \\mathbf {b}) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 585, + 880, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $f,g,h$ are PLM-based encoders, $\\mathbf{W}$ and $\\mathbf{b}$ are trainable variables, and $\\sigma$ refers to the sigmoid function.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 614, + 880, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The bi-encoder structure allows precomputing entity embeddings in knowledge bases, which enables efficient retrieval in real-world applications. Compared with bi-encoder, cross-encoder better captures the relation between context and entities with the cross attention mechanism, thus demonstrating higher accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 663, + 882, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Integrating Entity Types", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 747, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous entity linking models (Gupta et al., 2017; Onoe and Durrett, 2020; Raiman and Raiman, 2018) have proved that entity types do help models better disambiguate between candidate entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The type information can be integrated into bi-encoders and cross-encoders by adding a typing layer. In the bi-encoder structure, the mention types", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10850", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9da85eddf9b2092b5ec15350202675588b5999e429f3b92902a41f5b42b32ea0.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Experimental results on NEL and previous datasets. Non-NAC, NAC, and OAC represent non-NIL accuracy, NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. *Results of GENRE on AIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are taken from the original paper (Cao et al., 2021)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
NEL (our dataset)AIDA w/ NILAIDA w/o NILMSNBCWNED-WIKI
Non-NACNACOACNon-NACNACOACOACOACOAC
BLINK-bi72.2788.5977.7464.5469.5965.0182.6170.8658.56
CLINK-bi79.2479.2879.2575.9866.3675.0983.2673.2958.99
GENRE*54.0062.8456.96---88.6088.1071.70
BLINK-cross84.0988.8985.7083.0845.1679.5887.4982.0269.48
CLINK-cross86.9789.1987.7184.4258.5382.0388.1689.7072.43
", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 135, + 858, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$t_c$ and entity types $t_e$ are predicted separately:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 269, + 455, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nt _ {c} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {c} f (c) + b _ {c}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 296, + 487, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nt _ {e} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {e} g (e) + b _ {e}\\right) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 316, + 485, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "while they are simultaneously predicted in the cross-encoder structure:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 485, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left[ t _ {c}, t _ {e} \\right] = \\sigma \\left(W f ([ c, e ]) + b\\right) \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 387, + 487, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\sigma$ represents the sigmoid function and $W_{c}, b_{c}, W_{e}, b_{e}, W, b$ are trainable parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 485, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To tackle the label imbalance between types, we use the focal loss (Lin et al., 2017) on the typing task:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 485, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {t} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {t}} \\left(y _ {i} \\left(1 - t _ {i}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\log t _ {i} + \\left(1 - y _ {i}\\right) t _ {i} ^ {\\gamma} \\log \\left(1 - t _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 502, + 494, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $n_t$ is the total number of types in the type system, $\\gamma$ is a hyperparameter, $y_i$ is the golden label of the $i$ -th type and $t_i$ is the predicted label of the $i$ -th type. In bi-encoder, $\\mathcal{L}_t$ is the average of loss on $t_c$ and $t_e$ , while in cross-encoder $\\mathcal{L}_t$ is directly calculated from $[t_c, t_e]$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 556, + 487, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train the semantic encoder with binary classification loss $\\mathcal{L}_s$ , and combine $\\mathcal{L}_s$ with $\\mathcal{L}_t$ as the final loss $\\mathcal{L}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 487, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {s} + \\mathcal {L} _ {t} \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 248, + 701, + 487, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Identifying Mentions Linking to NIL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 727, + 448, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The type similarity is computed with cosine similarity, and the final score is a weighted sum between type similarity and semantic similarity:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 747, + 487, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns _ {t} (c, e) = \\cos \\left(t _ {c}, t _ {e}\\right) \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 807, + 487, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns (c, e) = \\lambda s _ {s} (c, e) + (1 - \\lambda) s _ {t} (c, e) \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 826, + 487, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\lambda$ is a hyperparameter.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 331, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each entry $(C_l, m, C_r, E_m, a)$ , we concatenate $(C_l, m, C_r)$ to form the context $c$ . In the training step, for each candidate entity $e \\in E_m$ , we", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "view $(c,e)$ as a positive example if $e = a$ , and as a negative example if $a = N I L$ or $e\\neq a$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 269, + 880, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During evaluation, the similarity score $s(c, e)$ is computed between context $c$ and each candidate entity $e$ . If there exist entities with a score equal to or higher than the nil threshold $\\epsilon = 0.5$ , we choose the entity with the highest similarity score as the answer; If all entities fail to reach the threshold, then the mention $m$ links to NIL.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 302, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\na = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\arg \\max _ {e} s (c, e), & \\exists e, s (c, e) \\geq \\epsilon \\\\ N I L, & \\forall e, s (c, e) < \\epsilon \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 426, + 882, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 499, + 655, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct a series of experiments on two types of datasets, which test the different ability of entity linking models: (1) NEL that tests the ability of NIL prediction; (2) previous EL datasets that tests the ability of entity disambiguation. We choose the following models for comparison: BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) that uses the bi-encoder and cross-encoder alone to score candidate entities, CLINK that integrates type information with BLINK, and GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) that generates the linking result with a sequence-to-sequence model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 882, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Main Experiment Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 719, + 756, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We trained and tested the models on NEL, with BERT-large as the encoder base of BLINK and CLINK, and BART-large as the backbone of GENRE, to observe their ability in NIL prediction. We also experimented on previous entity linking datasets to observe the disambiguation ability of different models. The models are trained on the AIDA-YAGO2-train (Hoffart et al., 2011) dataset, and tested on AIDA-YAGO2-testb, MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10851", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/82921ec86baf05b23d1676f01eff4000cafe406a9812bd9484b28a4feaebc810.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Experimental results on the influence of the entity typing task on NEL. OAC indicates the overall accuracy of entity linking. The overall accuracy with typing is achieved without using the type similarity score." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelCtxt Type Acc.Cand Type Acc.OAC w/ TypingOAC w/o Typing
Bi-encoder83.7593.4678.3577.74
Cross-encoder83.9598.0187.4183.67
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 120, + 838, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/02e30405e73002b7378d2bc1a22777bb96a4c24cb2ba4a58180d370f3daabd8f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Ablation study on the influence of NIL training data. The x-axis indicates the percentage of used NIL data or Non-Entity Phrase data in the training set." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 166, + 202, + 391, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/263bc244634f9c1b1445bb160d05b1135b3a88b60cd36aa8e8fea317e4080aac.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 391, + 200, + 610, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/24005887099eaae4c374ea6b9eeba60e1897c3e3afef1fec1f89daf1fc351797.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 611, + 202, + 823, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "187 distinct types are used in experiments on NEL, and considering that the entity type distribution may be different across datasets, we use a type system with only 14 top-level entity types on previous datasets to make CLINK more transferable (See Appendix C for details). We retain the same textual representation format with BLINK (see Appendix A), while using 128 as the length of context sequences and entity descriptions. All models are implemented with PyTorch and optimized with the Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) optimizer with a learning rate of 1e-5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 487, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 shows the evaluation results, from which some insights could be discovered:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 650, + 485, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Type Information Matters. CLINK with cross-encoder structure achieves the highest accuracy on almost all datasets, and is still comparable with GENRE on AIDA, from which we may assert that taking type information into consideration is helpful even without NIL prediction. Meanwhile, on both structures, the overall accuracy of CLINK outperforms BLINK on all datasets, proving that the entity typing task assists both bi-encoder and cross-encoder distinguish correct entities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 696, + 487, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Encoder Structure. The cross-encoder structure generally performs better than bi-encoder, but we observe that sometimes bi-encoders show de", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cent ability in detecting NIL mentions, especially when type information is not utilized. BLINK-bi achieves the highest NIL accuracy score of 69.59 on AIDA with NIL, and has a score of 88.59 on NEL, which is comparable with the best-performing CLINK-cross. This phenomenon indicates that cross-encoders may be more prone to overfitting, while entity types would alleviate this tendency.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 456, + 884, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NIL Entries. On the AIDA dataset, we observe that the models generally suffer from a drop in accuracy when taking NIL entries into consideration, and the drop is more obvious in bi-encoders. This may indicate that the performance of models is inflated without NIL prediction, and NIL entries may confuse the models in practical application.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 882, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 675, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.1 Influence of the Entity Typing Task", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 755, + 843, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conducted experiments to observe how the entity typing task influences the model. We trained the model with both $\\mathcal{L}_t$ and $\\mathcal{L}_s$ as loss, while setting $\\lambda = 1$ during evaluation to ignore the influence of type similarity scores. Results shown in Table 4 reflects two observations:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, candidate type predictions benefit from mention context. We observe that when changing the structure from bi-encoder to cross-encoder, the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10852", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "type prediction accuracy on candidates raises by $5\\%$ , where the accuracy on contexts remains unchanged. This is likely because the context helps narrow down the type range, while the context type prediction generally remains unaffected by entity descriptions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, unifying the entity typing task in the training process leads to higher overall accuracy, even when the type similarity score is not taken into consideration in the evaluation, which can be demonstrated by the improved score of OAC w/ Typing compared to OAC w/o Typing on both models. This may indicate that predicting entity types would help the model learn semantic embeddings with higher quality.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 181, + 489, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.2 Influence of NIL Training Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 338, + 418, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared with previous datasets like AIDA, NEL contains more NIL mentions of the Non-Entity Phrase type. We trained the models with different numbers of Non-Entity Phrase examples to observe the influence of NIL Training Data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 359, + 487, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As demonstrated by Figure 3, all models suffer from a great decline in NIL accuracy when no NIL examples are used during the training stage, and bi-encoder is more prone to the accuracy drop. However, by using only $25\\%$ of Non-Entity Phrase examples in training, the NIL accuracy would recover to a decent level. Further adding NIL examples has little impact on cross-encoder models, but bi-encoder models still constantly benefit from additional data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 439, + 487, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides, ignoring NIL data with the Non-Entity Phrase type will also harm the NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. Both types of NIL training data are necessary to reach to best performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 487, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We discover that entity linking models may be unaware of the NIL mentions when there is insufficient training data. A small amount of training data is enough for cross-encoder models to reach a reasonable accuracy, while bi-encoder models constantly benefit from additional training data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 487, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 778, + 268, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PLM-based Models in Entity Linking. Using pretrained language models (PLM) to capture semantic information is widely adopted in recent entity linking models. BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) marks the mention in context with pre-defined special tokens, and takes BERT as the encoder base. Two structures are adopted by BLINK to handle", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "different situations: bi-encoder for fast dense retrieval, and cross-encoder for further disambiguation. MOLEMAN (Fitzgerald et al., 2021) searches for similar mention contexts instead of entities, which better captures the diverse aspects an entity reflects in various contexts. GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) finetunes the sequence-to-sequence model BART, directly generating the unique entity name according to the mention context.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Research on NIL Prediction. The NIL prediction problem has been long viewed as an auxiliary task of entity linking. Some entity linking datasets (AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011), TAC-KBP series (McNamee and Dang, 2009)) take the NIL prediction problem into consideration, while some (ACE and MSNBC) (Ratinov et al., 2011) omit mentions linking to NIL. Some research has already been conducted on the NIL prediction problem. Lazic et al. (2015) and Peters et al. (2019) set a score threshold to filter reasonable candidates, and mentions with no candidate score above the threshold are linked to NIL. Sil and Florian (2016); Kolitsas et al. (2018) views the NIL placeholder as a special entity, and selecting it as the best match indicates that the mention refers to no entities in the given KB. However, recent entity linking models, which use pretrained language models (PLM) as encoder bases, generally take the in-KB setting, which assumes that each mention has a valid golden entity in the KB (Wu et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 239, + 884, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity Type Assisted Entity Linking. Entity types can effectively assist entity linking and have been studied in various works. Gupta et al. (2017) jointly encodes mention context, entity description, and Freebase types with bidirectional LSTM to maximize the cosine similarity. DeepType (Raiman and Raiman, 2018) predicts the type probability of each token and gathers relevant tokens to predict the entity types, which would help eliminate candidates with incompatible types. Onoe and Durrett (2020) views entity types as a training objective rather than a feature, predicting fine-grained Wikipedia category tags to select the most relevant entity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 589, + 882, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 828, + 640, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. We observe that mentions linking to NIL can be categorized into two patterns: Missing Entity and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10853", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Non-Entity Phrase, but the latter one has not been paid sufficient attention. We propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on NIL prediction. The dataset is built upon the Wikipedia corpus by choosing ambiguous entities as seeds and collecting relevant mention contexts. NEL is human-annotated to ensure correctness, and entity masking is further performed to control the percentage of NIL.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conducted a series of experiments to examine the performance of PLM-based models on different datasets. Experimental results indicate that the accuracy without considering NIL prediction would be inflated. Meanwhile, sufficient data of both NIL types during training is essential to trigger the ability of NIL prediction. In the future, we may further try to integrate entity types into the pretraining process and explore type transfer between datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 231, + 489, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 397, + 285, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This paper is supported by a grant from the Institute for Guo Qiang, Tsinghua University (2019GQB0003).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 428, + 489, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 513, + 218, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work still exist some limitations. First, we choose an entity typing system on the base of Wiki-data tags, however, the granularity of the typing system remains to be discussed. A system with too many types would introduce noise to long-tail types, while insufficient types would weaken the disambiguation ability of type similarity. Thus, building a type system with adequate granularity remains a challenge.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 545, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, we combine the entity typing task with PLM-based semantic encoders, which require a fixed type system and further finetuning. Integrating the entity typing task into the pretraining process may enhance the transferability of the model and remove the dependency on a fixed type system.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 692, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Potential Risks. Our proposed dataset NEL centers on ambiguous entities, whose type distribution may not remain the same with other datasets. A potential risk is that the model trained on NEL may experience under-exposure of other entity types, which would damage their transferability and lead to undesired outputs on other datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 660, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we will discuss the ethical considerations of our work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 112, + 884, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Licenses and terms. The Wikipedia corpus and Wikidata types are obtained via the Wikimedia dump $^2$ , under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license $^3$ . AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are shared under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. These datasets have been widely used in entity linking research, and we believe that they have been anonymized and desensitized.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 156, + 884, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Annotation. We recruited 3 human annotators without a background of expertise in annotation, and 1 expert annotator with adequate knowledge in entity linking for checking. These annotators are employed by commercial data annotation companies. We have paid these recruited annotators with adequate rewards under the agreed working time and price. The annotators are well informed about how these annotated data will be used and released, which has been recorded in the contract.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 297, + 884, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intended use. NEL is an entity linking dataset focusing on the NIL prediction problem. Researchers are intended to use NEL for examining the ability of NIL prediction of newly created entity linking models. AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are intended for entity linking research, which is compatible with our work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 487, + 884, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 630, + 608, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Lihu Chen, Gaël Varoquaux, and Fabian M Suchanek. 2021. A lightweight neural model for biomedical entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12657-12665.", + "Silviu Cucerzan. 2007. Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In Proceedings of the 2007 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pages 708-716." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 653, + 885, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://dumps.wikimedia.org", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 890, + 715, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 828, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10854", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Mark Dredze, Paul McNamee, Delip Rao, Adam Gerber, and Tim Finin. 2010. Entity disambiguation for knowledge base population. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 277-285.", + "Yotam Eshel, Noam Cohen, Kira Radinsky, Shaul Markovitch, Ikuya Yamada, and Omer Levy. 2017. Named entity disambiguation for noisy text. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 58-68.", + "Nicholas Fitzgerald, Dan Bikel, Jan Botha, Dan Gillick, Tom Kwiatkowski, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Moleman: Mention-only linking of entities with a mention annotation network. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 278-285.", + "Nitish Gupta, Sameer Singh, and Dan Roth. 2017. Entity linking via joint encoding of types, descriptions, and context. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2681-2690.", + "Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 782-792.", + "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.", + "Nikolaos Kolitsas, Octavian-Eugen Ganea, and Thomas Hofmann. 2018. End-to-end neural entity linking. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 519-529.", + "Nevena Lazic, Amarnag Subramanya, Michael Ringgaard, and Fernando Pereira. 2015. Plato: A selective context model for entity resolution. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:503-515.", + "Harry Levin. 1977. The title as a literary genre. *The Modern language review*, 72(4):xxiii-xxxvi.", + "Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dólar. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980-2988.", + "Xiao Ling, Sameer Singh, and Daniel S Weld. 2015. Design challenges for entity linking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:315-328." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Kangqi Luo, Fengli Lin, Xusheng Luo, and Kenny Zhu. 2018. Knowledge base question answering via encoding of complex query graphs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2185-2194.", + "Paul McNamee and Hoa Trang Dang. 2009. Overview of the tac 2009 knowledge base population track. In Text analysis conference (TAC), volume 17, pages 111-113.", + "Yasumasa Onoe and Greg Durrett. 2020. Fine-grained entity typing for domain independent entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8576-8583.", + "Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert Logan, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 43-54.", + "Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32.", + "Lev Ratinov, Dan Roth, Doug Downey, and Mike Anderson. 2011. Local and global algorithms for disambiguation to wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1375-1384.", + "Avirup Sil and Radu Florian. 2016. One for all: Towards language independent named entity linking. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2255-2264.", + "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6397-6407." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Details about the NEL Dataset Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 726, + 811, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Corpora", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 769, + 626, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The NEL dataset is built from the 2021-07 English Wikipedia dump under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. We take the hyperlinks in the raw xml dump as entity mentions, and retain at most 128 tokens around the mentions as their context. We take 64 tokens left to the mention and 64 tokens right to the mention by default, and more tokens will be included in one side if the other side does not contain enough", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 790, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10855", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9a486402c2662152c7a0a4b11b726bcba00bd584ce6c0dc018783c770f912f6c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
HyperparameterNEL & AIDA w/ NIL
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.50.5
ε0.50.5
Epoch4{1, 4}4{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time2 hrs-3.5 hrs-
HyperparameterAIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC & WNED-WIKI
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.9[0.0, 1.0]0.9[0.0, 1.0]
ε0-0-
Epoch1{1, 4}1{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time4 hrs-3 hrs-
", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 80, + 794, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: The hyperparameters used in the training process.", + "bbox": [ + 297, + 424, + 695, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tokens. We then discard tokens from both ends to ensure that the context plus the mention do not exceed the 128 token limit. Media files (image, audio) and Lua commands are discarded during preprocess.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 487, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Data Selection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 555, + 278, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entries with the following features are viewed as noise and discarded:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 576, + 485, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The mention context contains the token $^{\\star \\star}$ which is usually a list or formula;", + "- The mention with only 1 candidate entity, which does not pose much challenge;", + "- The mention with more than 20 candidate entities, which is far too challenging;", + "- The mention appears as a sub-span of a word;", + "- The mention has a probability of over $50\\%$ of linking to a certain candidate entity, in which case we view the mention as unambiguous." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 617, + 487, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Textual Representation Format", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 829, + 410, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Textual representation format for bi-encoder:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 850, + 448, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nC = \\left[ \\mathrm {C L S} \\right] C _ {l} \\left[ m _ {\\text {s t a r t}} \\right] m \\left[ m _ {\\text {e n d}} \\right] C _ {r} \\left[ \\mathrm {S E P} \\right]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 877, + 458, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nE = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {C L S} \\end{array} \\right] e _ {t i t l e} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {t i t l e} \\end{array} \\right] e _ {d e s c} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {S E P} \\end{array} \\right]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 898, + 411, + 915 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Textual representation format for cross-encoder:", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 464, + 882, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} (C, E) = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {C L S} \\end{array} \\right] C _ {l} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {\\text {s t a r t}} \\end{array} \\right] m \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {\\text {e n d}} \\end{array} \\right] C _ {r} \\\\ [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] e _ {t i t l e} [ m _ {t i t l e} ] e _ {d e s c} [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 489, + 848, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $C$ represents mention context and $E$ represents the textual description of candidate mentions. $[m_{start}],[m_{end}],[m_{title}]$ are special tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 536, + 882, + 585 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Experiment Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 595, + 714, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the BERT-large-uncased model as the encoder base, with parameters initialized from the python transformers library. The models are trained on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU. We obtain the AIDA, MSNBC and WNED-WIKI dataset from the BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) repository https://github.com/facebookresearch/BLINK. We trained our model on the AIDA-train split, and evaluated on all three datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 620, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The hyperparameter configurations are as follows. Detailed hyperparameters are shown in Table 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 782, + 882, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Typing System", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 841, + 675, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.1 Typing System on NEL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 742, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use a tree-like typing system with 187 distinct types on NEL. The typing system is build on the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10856", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/972a6a6981a734ca9e7522b7d248d209f0d507aabf718084d6a57010f03fbdea.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Examples of type lines" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
EntityTypes
14th Street (Manhattan)Road->RouteOfTransportation->Infrastructure->ArchitecturalStructure->Place
1958 Copa del GeneralíasimoSoccerTournament->Tournament->SportsEvent->SocietalEvent->Event
ATM (song)Song->MusicalWork->Work
Brats (1991 film)Film->Work
Babe RuthBaseballPlayer->Athlete->Person
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 107, + 853, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "base of Wikidata types. Table 6 shows some examples of type lines in the system. The most 10 frequent types in NEL are: (Work, Organisation, Place, Event, Person, Activity, FictionalCharacter, Award, Species, MeanOfTransportation).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 278, + 489, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.2 Typing System on Traditional Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 470, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We retain 14 top-level types to make CLINK more transferable on different datasets. These types are: (Other, Person, Place, Work, Organization, Event, Fictional Character, Species, Activity, Device, Topical Concept, Ethnic Group, Food, Disease)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 393, + 489, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Errors in AIDA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 487, + 290, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7 demonstrates some mentions in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL. 50 errors are detected among the 300 randomly sampled data in AIDA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 487, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 576, + 250, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 shows some examples predicted by CLINK and BLINK without type information, which reflects how entity types influence the linking result.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 489, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the first example, models with the bi-encoder structure incorrectly take the \"Gates of Heaven\" entry (which is in fact a documentary film) as the linking result, while CLINK-cross notices the context word \"album\" may indicate the entity type type, and correctly links the mention to the album. In the second example, the \"Home Before Dark\" mention actually refers to a 1997 movie like other movies in the context, however the corresponding entry is absent in the English Wikipedia. The CLINK-cross model is able to identify that the mention should be labelled as NIL, where the other models mistakenly link it to the \"Home Before Dark\" entry, which is an album rather than a movie. We observe that the entity types do help measure the similarity", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 489, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "between mentions and entities, which enhances the performance of CLINK.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 278, + 880, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116547/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 381, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10857", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b471777a34000eb5fdd5d54d23bc44300ff28fdbf4eec1f8f8746e13b7df42de.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Mention ContextMentionAssumed Entity
Bosnian premier in Turkey for one day visit . ANKARA 1996-08-27TurkeyTurkey (Country)
EU rejects German call to boycott British lamb . Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22EUEuropean Union
U.S. F-14 catches fire while landing in Israel . JERUSALEM 1996-08-25A U.S. fighter plane blew a tyre and ...F-14Grumman F-14 Tomcat
This is the leading story in the Mozambican press on Monday. Reuters has not verified this story and does not vouch for its accuracy.ReutersReuters
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 190, + 858, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/50eef25dac563053a11230f6bf2b95c2b0159c9360f8d3dc6c3f4380f5381c26.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Examples data in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Mention Context:...singer, Michelle Branch, during her visit in Japan to promote her album Hotel Paper, for a magazine interview and photoshoot. After the release of Gates of Heaven the group a short break and performed in New York City ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionGates of HeavenGates of HeavenNILGates of Heaven (album)
Mention Context:...Michael Williams and David Collins founded the company in 1994 focusing on independent features, including Never Met Picasso (1996), Home Before Dark (1997), Six Ways To Sunday (1998), ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionHome Before DarkHome Before DarkHome Before DarkNIL
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 586, + 878, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Examples of predicted entity by different models. Entity mentions in context are labelled as red and the correct answer is labelled as bold.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 776, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10858", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section Limitations", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 145, + 297, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 168, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section Limitations", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 187, + 297, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract and Section 1", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 319, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 299, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 3", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 205, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 347, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 363, + 248, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 388, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section Ethical Considerations", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 407, + 383, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section Ethical Considerations", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 498, + 383, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 523, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section Ethical Considerations", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 573, + 383, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 598, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section Ethical Considerations", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 632, + 383, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 657, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 3", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 740, + 221, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 5", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 205, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix B", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 846, + 238, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10859", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 292, + 877, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? The instruction materials contain private information about authors and annotators, which may affect the double-blind review process. We have not yet been permitted to publish it.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section Ethical Considerations", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section Ethical Considerations", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? There have not yet established an ethics review board committee in our region.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? These data involve private information about annotators, and we have not yet been permitted to publish it." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 340, + 878, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10860", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_model.json b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68374f96ae725a43b72a955bec5bada93e16a880 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3002 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.091, + 0.829, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learn to Not Link: Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.125, + 0.871, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fangwei Zhu\\(^{1,2}\\), Jifan Yu\\(^{1,2}\\), Hailong Jin\\(^{1,2}\\), Juanzi Li\\(^{1,2}\\), Lei Hou\\(^{1,2*}\\) and Zhifang Sui\\(^{3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.144, + 0.85, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Dept. of Computer Sci.&Tech., BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China \\(^{2}\\)KIRC, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Tsinghua University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.177, + 0.882, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)MOE Key Lab of Computational Linguistics, Peking University {zfw19@mails.,yujf18@mails,jinhl15@mails.,lixuanzi@,houlei@}tsinghua.edu.cn {szf@}pku.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.343, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity linking models have achieved significant success via utilizing pretrained language models to capture semantic features. However, the NIL prediction problem, which aims to identify mentions without a corresponding entity in the knowledge base, has received insufficient attention. We categorize mentions linking to NIL into Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, and propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. NEL takes ambiguous entities as seeds, collects relevant mention context in the Wikipedia corpus, and ensures the presence of mentions linking to NIL by human annotation and entity masking. We conduct a series of experiments with the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder entity linking models, results show that both types of NIL mentions in training data have a significant influence on the accuracy of NIL prediction. Our code and dataset can be accessed at https://github.com/solitaryzero/NIL_EL." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.611, + 0.262, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.638, + 0.49, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity Linking (EL) aims to map entity mentions in free texts to their corresponding entities in a given Knowledge Base (KB). Entity linking acts as a bridge between unstructured text and structured knowledge, and benefits various downstream tasks like question answering (Luo et al., 2018) and knowledge extraction (Chen et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.751, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, not all entity mentions correspond to a specific entity in the KB that suits the mention context (Ling et al., 2015). Take Table 1 as an example, Peter Blackburn is actually a journalist, and the householder is a common phrase rather than an entity. These two mentions do not refer to any entity in the given KB. The identification of these mentions is referred to as NIL prediction. Therefore, to tackle NIL prediction, the entity linking model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "needs to select mentions whose references are absent in KB, and link them to a special placeholder \\( \\text{NIL} \\). Dredze et al. (2010) states NIL prediction as one of the key issues in entity linking, which may lead to a decrease in the recall of entity linking systems. Meanwhile, the incorrectly linked entities may provide false information to downstream tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.384, + 0.885, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There have been some earlier representation learning based researches that take NIL prediction into consideration (Eshel et al., 2017; Lazic et al., 2015; Peters et al., 2019). They identify NIL mentions by setting a vector similarity threshold or viewing NIL as a special entity. Recently, pretrained language model (PLM) based models (Wu et al., 2020; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Cao et al., 2021) have achieved great success for their great transferability and expandability. However, these models generally assume that there always exists a correct entity for each mention in the knowledge base, which leaves the NIL prediction problem without adequate attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.612, + 0.887, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous entity linking datasets have paid insufficient attention to the NIL prediction problem. For example, some of the previous datasets like AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011) view it as an auxiliary task, while others like MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017) does not require NIL prediction at all. There does not yet exist a strong benchmark for the ability on NIL prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. About \\(30\\%\\) of the mentions in NEL do not have their corresponding entity in the candidate entity set, which requires models to identify these mentions rather than linking them to the wrong candidates. In NEL construction, we take ambiguous entities as seeds, and build the dataset by mining mention contexts related to seed entities on the Wikipedia corpus. Then, human annotators are" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.3, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Corresponding Author" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.528, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10846" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10846-10860 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.177, + 0.082, + 0.825, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Missing Entity
Mention ContextEU rejects German call to boycott British lamb. Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22
Peter Blackburn (Bishop)Peter Blackburn (d.1616) was a Scottish scholar and prelate. He was the second Protestant Bishop of Aberdeen.
Peter Blackburn (MP)Peter Blackburn (1811 – 20 May 1870) was a British Conservative Party politician.
Peter Blackburn (Badminton)Peter Grant Blackburn (born 25 March 1968) is an Australian badminton player who affiliated with the Ballarat Badminton Association.
Non-Entity Phrase
Mention ContextMost Hindus accept that there is a duty to have a family during the house-holder stage of life, as debt to family lineage called Pitra Rin (Father's Debt) and so are unlikely to avoid having children altogether ...
The Householder (Film)The Householder (Hindi title: Gharbar) is a 1963 film by Merchant Ivory Productions, with a screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala ...
The Householder (Novel)The Householder is a 1960 English-language novel by Ruth Prawer Jhab-vala ...
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.378, + 0.884, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Example of mentions that should be linked to NIL and their potential candidate entities. Mentions are labeled as red." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.433, + 0.489, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "asked to identify whether the mentions correspond to a candidate entity or not, and we further perform entity masking to ensure a fair proportion of NIL data of about \\(30\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.49, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In NIL prediction, we propose to use the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder structures as the model backbone, and further integrate type information by adding an entity typing subtask. We combine semantic and type similarity as the final similarity score, and identify NIL mentions by setting a similarity threshold." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.49, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct a series of experiments on both NEL and previous entity linking datasets. Experimental results show that the models suffer from an accuracy drop when taking NIL prediction into consideration, indicating that the accuracy may be inflated without the NIL prediction task, and NEL could better diagnose the performance of different models. We also conducted ablation studies on how type information and NIL examples affect the models. We discover that the entity typing subtask yields better embedding even when type similarity is not used, and both types of NIL examples in training data would boost the ability of NIL prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.824, + 0.425, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions can be concluded as:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We categorize the NIL prediction problem into two patterns: Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, where the latter one has not received sufficient attention in previous works." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.433, + 0.885, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose an entity linking dataset NEL focusing on NIL prediction, which covers two patterns of NIL data and could act as a benchmark for diagnosing the ability of NIL prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.528, + 0.884, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We conducted a series of experiments, whose results demonstrate that the accuracy of models may be inflated when not taking NIL prediction into consideration. Meanwhile, both patterns of NIL data in training are essential for triggering the ability of NIL prediction." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.433, + 0.885, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.654, + 0.65, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Preliminary" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.681, + 0.885, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity mentions \\( M = \\{m_i\\} \\) refer to text spans potentially corresponding to entities in a document \\( D = (w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_n) \\), where \\( w_i \\) is either a plain token or a mention. Each mention \\( m_i \\) may correspond to an entity \\( e_i \\in E \\) in the entity set \\( E \\) of knowledge base \\( \\mathcal{KB} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.784, + 0.884, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Definition 1. Entity linking aims to find an optimal mapping \\(\\Gamma : M \\Rightarrow E\\), which maps entity mentions \\(M = \\{m_i\\}\\) to their corresponding entities \\(E = \\{e_i\\}\\), where \\(e_i \\in \\mathcal{KB}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The NIL prediction problem is to determine whether an entity mention \\( m \\) is absent from the knowledge base \\( \\mathcal{KB} \\). When there does not exist a proper entity \\( e \\in \\mathcal{KB} \\) for the given mention \\( m \\)," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10847" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.094, + 0.837, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.367, + 0.884, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An illustration of how NEL is constructed. We select ambiguous entities as seeds, taking their alias as potential mentions to discover mention contexts from Wikipedia. The entries are annotated by human annotators, and entity masking is performed on some entries to control the portion of NIL data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.436, + 0.489, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the model should link \\( m \\) to a special NIL entity, indicating that the mention is unlinkable." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.471, + 0.487, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Definition 2. Entity linking with NIL prediction aims to find an optimal mapping \\(\\Gamma : M \\Rightarrow E \\cup \\{NIL\\}\\), where NIL is a special placeholder and \\(m\\) correspond to NIL only when there is no correct answer in the candidate entity set \\(E\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.555, + 0.49, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As demonstrated in Table 1, there exist two situations in real-world entity linking where NIL prediction should be taken into consideration:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Missing Entity: The mention \\( m \\) refers to certain entity \\( e \\) that has not been yet included in \\( \\mathcal{KB} \\), i.e. \\( m \\Rightarrow e \\notin \\mathcal{KB} \\). For example, in the upper half of Table 1, the mention Peter Blackburn refers to a certain journalist, while entries in English Wikipedia include only people with other occupations, leading to the mention linking to NIL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.748, + 0.49, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Non-Entity Phrase: The mention \\( m \\) refers to a common phrase that is not usually viewed as an entity, i.e. \\( m \\nRightarrow e \\). For example, the mention the householder in the lower half of Table 1 refers to a concept rather than a film or novel." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.863, + 0.334, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Dataset Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There does not yet exist a strong benchmark on NIL prediction. We manually annotated 300 examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.436, + 0.883, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with their mentions linking to NIL from the widely used entity linking dataset AIDA1, and discover that about \\(10\\%\\) of these mentions should actually link to an entity. For example, the mention \"EU\" in \"EU rejects German\" should be linked to the European Union rather than NIL (See Appendix D for details). Meanwhile, NIL mentions in AIDA fall mostly in the Missing Entity category. The incorrect and imbalanced data for NIL prediction indicates that the importance of NIL prediction is currently underestimated." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.615, + 0.884, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we propose an entity linking dataset named NEL, which focuses on the NIL prediction problem. The construction process is demonstrated in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.681, + 0.885, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike normal entity linking data, there does not exist annotated references for mentions linking to NIL, and the portion of NIL data in the text corpus is unknown. Hyperlinks in Wikipedia can be viewed as mentions linking to non-NIL entities, from which we can find the aliases of entities. We assume that when an alias does not appear as a hyperlink in a certain context, it may be identified as a mention linking to NIL. In this way, we collect such contexts as the raw data. The raw data is then annotated by humans to ensure correctness, and we further mask out some answer entities in the candidate set to control the percentage of NIL in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.904, + 0.541, + 0.913 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10848" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.082, + 0.835, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Dataset# DataAnnotatedNIL percentage%Missing Entity%Non-Entity Phrase
AIDA34956✓20.41%73%*10%*
MSNBC654✓0%--
WNED-Wiki240000×0%--
NEL (ours)9924✓33.57%17%83%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.186, + 0.885, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Statistics of the NEL dataset compared with previous entity linking datasets. *The percentage of two NIL patterns in AIDA is calculated from 300 randomly sampled NIL data, and data with errors do not count as any pattern." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.256, + 0.184, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "answers." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.283, + 0.284, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Data Collection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.304, + 0.489, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Levin (1977) states that the title of creative works could be a place, a personal name, or a certain abstract concept like the choric embodiment of some collectivity (The Clouds, The Birds) or stock types (The Alchemist, Le Misanthrope), which would naturally lead to the two situations where a mention links to NIL. The absence of the referenced entity from the KB would lead to Missing Entity, while an abstract concept not viewed as an entity would lead to Non-Entity Phrase." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.466, + 0.49, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To discover NIL mentions of both types, we start by taking entities that share an alias with other entities as seeds. We assume that a mention referring to multiple entities has a higher probability of linking to a Missing Entity outside the KB, and the complex meaning of the mention will lead to Non-Entity Phrase. Thus, the aliases of ambiguous seed entities would be good starting points for mining NIL mentions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.62, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity Selection We further filter ambiguous entities to remove low-quality seeds. First, we remove noise instances like template pages, and entities with less than 5 hyperlinks are also removed. Meanwhile, we discarded entities with a probability greater than \\(50\\%\\) of being the linking result, as these entities can generally be considered to be unambiguous and lack difficulty. Finally, 1000 entities are sampled as the seed entity set \\(E_{s}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.766, + 0.489, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use a typing system based on Wikidata to identify the type of selected entities. We view the instance of relation as the type indicator, and utilize the subclass of relation to build a tree-form type system. The detailed type system can be found in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mention Discovery We build an alias table from the 2021 Wikipedia dump by extracting alias-entity pairs \\((m,e)\\) from internal hyperlinks. All alias" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.255, + 0.885, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(m\\) related to entities in the seed entity set \\(E_{s}\\) are gathered as the mention set \\(M\\). For each mention \\(m \\in M\\), we look for its occurrence throughout the Wikipedia corpus (whether it appears as a hyperlink or not) to obtain the entry tuple \\((C_{l}, m, C_{r}, E_{m})\\), where \\(C_{l}\\) and \\(C_{r}\\) represent contexts left and right to the entity mention \\(m\\), and \\(E_{m}\\) represents the candidate entities set of \\(m\\). For each mention \\(m\\), we sampled 5 entries where \\(m\\) appears as a hyperlink and 5 entries where \\(m\\) appears in plain text to balance the number of positive and negative examples, and a total of 10,000 entries are collected." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.462, + 0.871, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Human Annotation and Post-processing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.484, + 0.884, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform annotation on the above entries with 3 annotators. The annotators are provided with the mention context \\((C_l, m, C_r)\\) and candidate entities \\(E_m\\). Each candidate entity \\(e\\) consists of its title, textual description, and Wikipedia URL. The annotators are asked to choose the answer entity \\(a \\in E_m\\) corresponding to the mention \\(m\\), or \\(a = NIL\\) if none of the candidates are correct." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.884, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An expert will further investigate entries in which annotators fail to reach a consensus. The expert is a senior annotator with essential knowledge of entity linking, and will confirm the final annotation result after carefully reading through the context and candidate entities. We use the annotation result as the final answer \\(a\\) if there is an agreement between 3 annotators, and the entity chosen by the expert otherwise. The annotated tuple \\((C_l,m,C_r,E_m,a)\\) acts as the final entry of our dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further simulate the situation where new emerging entities do not appear in knowledge bases, we perform entity masking on positive entries. We randomly sample \\(10\\%\\) entries where \\(a \\neq NIL\\), and mask the correct entity in the candidate set \\(E_{m}\\). In this case, as the correct answer is removed from the candidate list, we have \\(a = NIL\\), i.e. the mention \\(m\\) corresponds to the empty entity NIL." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10849" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.094, + 0.506, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.094, + 0.828, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.367, + 0.882, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall structure of PLM-based retrieval models. Candidates which are confusing in the semantic space may be more distinguishable in the type space. Mentions linking to NIL frequently differ from their candidates in their types, so we combine semantic similarity with type similarity for NIL prediction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.436, + 0.295, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Dataset Statistics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.458, + 0.488, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 demonstrates the properties of the NEL dataset. NEL includes 6,593 positive examples and 3,331 negative examples, covering 1,000 mentions and 3,840 related entities. Each mention has an average of 3.80 candidate entities. The inter-annotator agreement of NEL is \\(94.61\\%\\), indicating that the expert calibrated about \\(5\\%\\) of the data. The full dataset is split into train/validation/test sets by the ratio of \\(80\\%/10\\%/10\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.604, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NEL contains a fair number of entries, and is human-annotated to ensure correctness. Compared with previous entity linking datasets, NEL has a higher percentage of NIL data, which could better diagnose the ability of different models in NIL prediction. Meanwhile, mentions linking to NIL in AIDA mostly fall in the Missing Entity situation, while NEL focuses more on the Non-Entity Phrase situation, thus complementing the insufficient attention on Non-Entity Phrase in NIL prediction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.795, + 0.454, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Entity Linking with NIL prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A mention links to NIL when all of its candidate entities fail to match its context. A common paradigm of NIL prediction is to compute the similarity scores between the mention context and candidates, and judge its linking result on the base of similarities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.436, + 0.712, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Scoring Similarities" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.456, + 0.883, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bi-encoder and cross-encoder are widely adopted scorer structures, as they are well compatible with pretrained language models. Bi-encoder encodes mention contexts and entities into the same dense vector space, while cross-encoder views similarity scoring as a sequence classification task:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.566, + 0.884, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns _ {b i} (c, e) = \\sigma (f (c) \\cdot g (e)) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.573, + 0.586, + 0.882, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns _ {c r o s s} (c, e) = \\sigma (\\mathbf {W h} ([ c, e ]) + \\mathbf {b}) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.615, + 0.882, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(f,g,h\\) are PLM-based encoders, \\(\\mathbf{W}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{b}\\) are trainable variables, and \\(\\sigma\\) refers to the sigmoid function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.664, + 0.884, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The bi-encoder structure allows precomputing entity embeddings in knowledge bases, which enables efficient retrieval in real-world applications. Compared with bi-encoder, cross-encoder better captures the relation between context and entities with the cross attention mechanism, thus demonstrating higher accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.787, + 0.749, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Integrating Entity Types" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.883, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous entity linking models (Gupta et al., 2017; Onoe and Durrett, 2020; Raiman and Raiman, 2018) have proved that entity types do help models better disambiguate between candidate entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The type information can be integrated into bi-encoders and cross-encoders by adding a typing layer. In the bi-encoder structure, the mention types" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10850" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.887, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Experimental results on NEL and previous datasets. Non-NAC, NAC, and OAC represent non-NIL accuracy, NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. *Results of GENRE on AIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are taken from the original paper (Cao et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.136, + 0.86, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
NEL (our dataset)AIDA w/ NILAIDA w/o NILMSNBCWNED-WIKI
Non-NACNACOACNon-NACNACOACOACOACOAC
BLINK-bi72.2788.5977.7464.5469.5965.0182.6170.8658.56
CLINK-bi79.2479.2879.2575.9866.3675.0983.2673.2958.99
GENRE*54.0062.8456.96---88.6088.1071.70
BLINK-cross84.0988.8985.7083.0845.1679.5887.4982.0269.48
CLINK-cross86.9789.1987.7184.4258.5382.0388.1689.7072.43
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.271, + 0.457, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(t_c\\) and entity types \\(t_e\\) are predicted separately:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.297, + 0.488, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nt _ {c} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {c} f (c) + b _ {c}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.219, + 0.317, + 0.487, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nt _ {e} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {e} g (e) + b _ {e}\\right) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.345, + 0.487, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "while they are simultaneously predicted in the cross-encoder structure:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.388, + 0.488, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left[ t _ {c}, t _ {e} \\right] = \\sigma \\left(W f ([ c, e ]) + b\\right) \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.416, + 0.487, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\sigma\\) represents the sigmoid function and \\(W_{c}, b_{c}, W_{e}, b_{e}, W, b\\) are trainable parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.448, + 0.487, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To tackle the label imbalance between types, we use the focal loss (Lin et al., 2017) on the typing task:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.503, + 0.495, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {t} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {t}} \\left(y _ {i} \\left(1 - t _ {i}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\log t _ {i} + \\left(1 - y _ {i}\\right) t _ {i} ^ {\\gamma} \\log \\left(1 - t _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.557, + 0.488, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( n_t \\) is the total number of types in the type system, \\( \\gamma \\) is a hyperparameter, \\( y_i \\) is the golden label of the \\( i \\)-th type and \\( t_i \\) is the predicted label of the \\( i \\)-th type. In bi-encoder, \\( \\mathcal{L}_t \\) is the average of loss on \\( t_c \\) and \\( t_e \\), while in cross-encoder \\( \\mathcal{L}_t \\) is directly calculated from \\( [t_c, t_e] \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.654, + 0.489, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train the semantic encoder with binary classification loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_s\\), and combine \\(\\mathcal{L}_s\\) with \\(\\mathcal{L}_t\\) as the final loss \\(\\mathcal{L}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.249, + 0.702, + 0.488, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {s} + \\mathcal {L} _ {t} \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.728, + 0.45, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Identifying Mentions Linking to NIL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.749, + 0.489, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The type similarity is computed with cosine similarity, and the final score is a weighted sum between type similarity and semantic similarity:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.808, + 0.488, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns _ {t} (c, e) = \\cos \\left(t _ {c}, t _ {e}\\right) \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.827, + 0.488, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns (c, e) = \\lambda s _ {s} (c, e) + (1 - \\lambda) s _ {t} (c, e) \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.856, + 0.332, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\lambda\\) is a hyperparameter." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each entry \\((C_l, m, C_r, E_m, a)\\), we concatenate \\((C_l, m, C_r)\\) to form the context \\(c\\). In the training step, for each candidate entity \\(e \\in E_m\\), we" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.271, + 0.882, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "view \\((c,e)\\) as a positive example if \\(e = a\\) , and as a negative example if \\(a = N I L\\) or \\(e\\neq a\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.303, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During evaluation, the similarity score \\( s(c, e) \\) is computed between context \\( c \\) and each candidate entity \\( e \\). If there exist entities with a score equal to or higher than the nil threshold \\( \\epsilon = 0.5 \\), we choose the entity with the highest similarity score as the answer; If all entities fail to reach the threshold, then the mention \\( m \\) links to NIL." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.428, + 0.884, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\na = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\arg \\max _ {e} s (c, e), & \\exists e, s (c, e) \\geq \\epsilon \\\\ N I L, & \\forall e, s (c, e) < \\epsilon \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.5, + 0.656, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.528, + 0.884, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct a series of experiments on two types of datasets, which test the different ability of entity linking models: (1) NEL that tests the ability of NIL prediction; (2) previous EL datasets that tests the ability of entity disambiguation. We choose the following models for comparison: BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) that uses the bi-encoder and cross-encoder alone to score candidate entities, CLINK that integrates type information with BLINK, and GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) that generates the linking result with a sequence-to-sequence model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.72, + 0.757, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Main Experiment Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We trained and tested the models on NEL, with BERT-large as the encoder base of BLINK and CLINK, and BART-large as the backbone of GENRE, to observe their ability in NIL prediction. We also experimented on previous entity linking datasets to observe the disambiguation ability of different models. The models are trained on the AIDA-YAGO2-train (Hoffart et al., 2011) dataset, and tested on AIDA-YAGO2-testb, MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10851" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.883, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Experimental results on the influence of the entity typing task on NEL. OAC indicates the overall accuracy of entity linking. The overall accuracy with typing is achieved without using the type similarity score." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.121, + 0.839, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelCtxt Type Acc.Cand Type Acc.OAC w/ TypingOAC w/o Typing
Bi-encoder83.7593.4678.3577.74
Cross-encoder83.9598.0187.4183.67
" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.203, + 0.392, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.393, + 0.202, + 0.611, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.203, + 0.825, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.402, + 0.884, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Ablation study on the influence of NIL training data. The x-axis indicates the percentage of used NIL data or Non-Entity Phrase data in the training set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.457, + 0.489, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "187 distinct types are used in experiments on NEL, and considering that the entity type distribution may be different across datasets, we use a type system with only 14 top-level entity types on previous datasets to make CLINK more transferable (See Appendix C for details). We retain the same textual representation format with BLINK (see Appendix A), while using 128 as the length of context sequences and entity descriptions. All models are implemented with PyTorch and optimized with the Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) optimizer with a learning rate of 1e-5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.651, + 0.487, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 shows the evaluation results, from which some insights could be discovered:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.697, + 0.489, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Type Information Matters. CLINK with cross-encoder structure achieves the highest accuracy on almost all datasets, and is still comparable with GENRE on AIDA, from which we may assert that taking type information into consideration is helpful even without NIL prediction. Meanwhile, on both structures, the overall accuracy of CLINK outperforms BLINK on all datasets, proving that the entity typing task assists both bi-encoder and cross-encoder distinguish correct entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Encoder Structure. The cross-encoder structure generally performs better than bi-encoder, but we observe that sometimes bi-encoders show de" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.457, + 0.885, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cent ability in detecting NIL mentions, especially when type information is not utilized. BLINK-bi achieves the highest NIL accuracy score of 69.59 on AIDA with NIL, and has a score of 88.59 on NEL, which is comparable with the best-performing CLINK-cross. This phenomenon indicates that cross-encoders may be more prone to overfitting, while entity types would alleviate this tendency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.611, + 0.884, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NIL Entries. On the AIDA dataset, we observe that the models generally suffer from a drop in accuracy when taking NIL entries into consideration, and the drop is more obvious in bi-encoders. This may indicate that the performance of models is inflated without NIL prediction, and NIL entries may confuse the models in practical application." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.735, + 0.676, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.756, + 0.845, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.1 Influence of the Entity Typing Task" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conducted experiments to observe how the entity typing task influences the model. We trained the model with both \\(\\mathcal{L}_t\\) and \\(\\mathcal{L}_s\\) as loss, while setting \\(\\lambda = 1\\) during evaluation to ignore the influence of type similarity scores. Results shown in Table 4 reflects two observations:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, candidate type predictions benefit from mention context. We observe that when changing the structure from bi-encoder to cross-encoder, the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10852" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "type prediction accuracy on candidates raises by \\(5\\%\\), where the accuracy on contexts remains unchanged. This is likely because the context helps narrow down the type range, while the context type prediction generally remains unaffected by entity descriptions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.183, + 0.49, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, unifying the entity typing task in the training process leads to higher overall accuracy, even when the type similarity score is not taken into consideration in the evaluation, which can be demonstrated by the improved score of OAC w/ Typing compared to OAC w/o Typing on both models. This may indicate that predicting entity types would help the model learn semantic embeddings with higher quality." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.34, + 0.42, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.2 Influence of NIL Training Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.36, + 0.489, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared with previous datasets like AIDA, NEL contains more NIL mentions of the Non-Entity Phrase type. We trained the models with different numbers of Non-Entity Phrase examples to observe the influence of NIL Training Data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.441, + 0.489, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As demonstrated by Figure 3, all models suffer from a great decline in NIL accuracy when no NIL examples are used during the training stage, and bi-encoder is more prone to the accuracy drop. However, by using only \\(25\\%\\) of Non-Entity Phrase examples in training, the NIL accuracy would recover to a decent level. Further adding NIL examples has little impact on cross-encoder models, but bi-encoder models still constantly benefit from additional data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.603, + 0.489, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides, ignoring NIL data with the Non-Entity Phrase type will also harm the NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. Both types of NIL training data are necessary to reach to best performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.669, + 0.489, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We discover that entity linking models may be unaware of the NIL mentions when there is insufficient training data. A small amount of training data is enough for cross-encoder models to reach a reasonable accuracy, while bi-encoder models constantly benefit from additional training data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.78, + 0.27, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PLM-based Models in Entity Linking. Using pretrained language models (PLM) to capture semantic information is widely adopted in recent entity linking models. BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) marks the mention in context with pre-defined special tokens, and takes BERT as the encoder base. Two structures are adopted by BLINK to handle" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "different situations: bi-encoder for fast dense retrieval, and cross-encoder for further disambiguation. MOLEMAN (Fitzgerald et al., 2021) searches for similar mention contexts instead of entities, which better captures the diverse aspects an entity reflects in various contexts. GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) finetunes the sequence-to-sequence model BART, directly generating the unique entity name according to the mention context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.24, + 0.885, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Research on NIL Prediction. The NIL prediction problem has been long viewed as an auxiliary task of entity linking. Some entity linking datasets (AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011), TAC-KBP series (McNamee and Dang, 2009)) take the NIL prediction problem into consideration, while some (ACE and MSNBC) (Ratinov et al., 2011) omit mentions linking to NIL. Some research has already been conducted on the NIL prediction problem. Lazic et al. (2015) and Peters et al. (2019) set a score threshold to filter reasonable candidates, and mentions with no candidate score above the threshold are linked to NIL. Sil and Florian (2016); Kolitsas et al. (2018) views the NIL placeholder as a special entity, and selecting it as the best match indicates that the mention refers to no entities in the given KB. However, recent entity linking models, which use pretrained language models (PLM) as encoder bases, generally take the in-KB setting, which assumes that each mention has a valid golden entity in the KB (Wu et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.59, + 0.884, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity Type Assisted Entity Linking. Entity types can effectively assist entity linking and have been studied in various works. Gupta et al. (2017) jointly encodes mention context, entity description, and Freebase types with bidirectional LSTM to maximize the cosine similarity. DeepType (Raiman and Raiman, 2018) predicts the type probability of each token and gathers relevant tokens to predict the entity types, which would help eliminate candidates with incompatible types. Onoe and Durrett (2020) views entity types as a training objective rather than a feature, predicting fine-grained Wikipedia category tags to select the most relevant entity." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.829, + 0.642, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. We observe that mentions linking to NIL can be categorized into two patterns: Missing Entity and" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10853" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Non-Entity Phrase, but the latter one has not been paid sufficient attention. We propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on NIL prediction. The dataset is built upon the Wikipedia corpus by choosing ambiguous entities as seeds and collecting relevant mention contexts. NEL is human-annotated to ensure correctness, and entity masking is further performed to control the percentage of NIL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.232, + 0.49, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conducted a series of experiments to examine the performance of PLM-based models on different datasets. Experimental results indicate that the accuracy without considering NIL prediction would be inflated. Meanwhile, sufficient data of both NIL types during training is essential to trigger the ability of NIL prediction. In the future, we may further try to integrate entity types into the pretraining process and explore type transfer between datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.398, + 0.287, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.429, + 0.49, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This paper is supported by a grant from the Institute for Guo Qiang, Tsinghua University (2019GQB0003)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.514, + 0.22, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.546, + 0.49, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work still exist some limitations. First, we choose an entity typing system on the base of Wiki-data tags, however, the granularity of the typing system remains to be discussed. A system with too many types would introduce noise to long-tail types, while insufficient types would weaken the disambiguation ability of type similarity. Thus, building a type system with adequate granularity remains a challenge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.693, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, we combine the entity typing task with PLM-based semantic encoders, which require a fixed type system and further finetuning. Integrating the entity typing task into the pretraining process may enhance the transferability of the model and remove the dependency on a fixed type system." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Potential Risks. Our proposed dataset NEL centers on ambiguous entities, whose type distribution may not remain the same with other datasets. A potential risk is that the model trained on NEL may experience under-exposure of other entity types, which would damage their transferability and lead to undesired outputs on other datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.662, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.113, + 0.885, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we will discuss the ethical considerations of our work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.157, + 0.885, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Licenses and terms. The Wikipedia corpus and Wikidata types are obtained via the Wikimedia dump\\(^2\\), under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license\\(^3\\). AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are shared under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. These datasets have been widely used in entity linking research, and we believe that they have been anonymized and desensitized." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.298, + 0.885, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Annotation. We recruited 3 human annotators without a background of expertise in annotation, and 1 expert annotator with adequate knowledge in entity linking for checking. These annotators are employed by commercial data annotation companies. We have paid these recruited annotators with adequate rewards under the agreed working time and price. The annotators are well informed about how these annotated data will be used and released, which has been recorded in the contract." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.488, + 0.885, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intended use. NEL is an entity linking dataset focusing on the NIL prediction problem. Researchers are intended to use NEL for examining the ability of NIL prediction of newly created entity linking models. AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are intended for entity linking research, which is compatible with our work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.631, + 0.61, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.655, + 0.885, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.722, + 0.887, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lihu Chen, Gaël Varoquaux, and Fabian M Suchanek. 2021. A lightweight neural model for biomedical entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12657-12665." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.802, + 0.885, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Silviu Cucerzan. 2007. Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In Proceedings of the 2007 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pages 708-716." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.655, + 0.887, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.891, + 0.717, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://dumps.wikimedia.org" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.83, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.891, + 0.83, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10854" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Dredze, Paul McNamee, Delip Rao, Adam Gerber, and Tim Finin. 2010. Entity disambiguation for knowledge base population. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 277-285." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.165, + 0.488, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yotam Eshel, Noam Cohen, Kira Radinsky, Shaul Markovitch, Ikuya Yamada, and Omer Levy. 2017. Named entity disambiguation for noisy text. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 58-68." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.257, + 0.488, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicholas Fitzgerald, Dan Bikel, Jan Botha, Dan Gillick, Tom Kwiatkowski, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Moleman: Mention-only linking of entities with a mention annotation network. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 278-285." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.375, + 0.488, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nitish Gupta, Sameer Singh, and Dan Roth. 2017. Entity linking via joint encoding of types, descriptions, and context. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2681-2690." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.455, + 0.488, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 782-792." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.56, + 0.488, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.613, + 0.488, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikolaos Kolitsas, Octavian-Eugen Ganea, and Thomas Hofmann. 2018. End-to-end neural entity linking. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 519-529." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.679, + 0.49, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nevena Lazic, Amarnag Subramanya, Michael Ringgaard, and Fernando Pereira. 2015. Plato: A selective context model for entity resolution. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:503-515." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.759, + 0.488, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Harry Levin. 1977. The title as a literary genre. *The Modern language review*, 72(4):xxiii-xxxvi." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.799, + 0.488, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dólar. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980-2988." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.865, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiao Ling, Sameer Singh, and Daniel S Weld. 2015. Design challenges for entity linking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:315-328." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kangqi Luo, Fengli Lin, Xusheng Luo, and Kenny Zhu. 2018. Knowledge base question answering via encoding of complex query graphs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2185-2194." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.883, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paul McNamee and Hoa Trang Dang. 2009. Overview of the tac 2009 knowledge base population track. In Text analysis conference (TAC), volume 17, pages 111-113." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.226, + 0.883, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yasumasa Onoe and Greg Durrett. 2020. Fine-grained entity typing for domain independent entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8576-8583." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.29, + 0.883, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert Logan, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 43-54." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.405, + 0.883, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.469, + 0.883, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lev Ratinov, Dan Roth, Doug Downey, and Mike Anderson. 2011. Local and global algorithms for disambiguation to wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1375-1384." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.558, + 0.883, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Avirup Sil and Radu Florian. 2016. One for all: Towards language independent named entity linking. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2255-2264." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.634, + 0.883, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6397-6407." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.727, + 0.812, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Details about the NEL Dataset Construction" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.77, + 0.628, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Corpora" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The NEL dataset is built from the 2021-07 English Wikipedia dump under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. We take the hyperlinks in the raw xml dump as entity mentions, and retain at most 128 tokens around the mentions as their context. We take 64 tokens left to the mention and 64 tokens right to the mention by default, and more tokens will be included in one side if the other side does not contain enough" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10855" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.082, + 0.795, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
HyperparameterNEL & AIDA w/ NIL
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.50.5
ε0.50.5
Epoch4{1, 4}4{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time2 hrs-3.5 hrs-
HyperparameterAIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC & WNED-WIKI
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.9[0.0, 1.0]0.9[0.0, 1.0]
ε0-0-
Epoch1{1, 4}1{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time4 hrs-3 hrs-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.299, + 0.425, + 0.696, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: The hyperparameters used in the training process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.465, + 0.489, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tokens. We then discard tokens from both ends to ensure that the context plus the mention do not exceed the 128 token limit. Media files (image, audio) and Lua commands are discarded during preprocess." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.556, + 0.279, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Data Selection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.577, + 0.487, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entries with the following features are viewed as noise and discarded:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.618, + 0.487, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The mention context contains the token \\(^{\\star \\star}\\) which is usually a list or formula;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.661, + 0.487, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The mention with only 1 candidate entity, which does not pose much challenge;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.703, + 0.488, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The mention with more than 20 candidate entities, which is far too challenging;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.746, + 0.487, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The mention appears as a sub-span of a word;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.772, + 0.487, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The mention has a probability of over \\(50\\%\\) of linking to a certain candidate entity, in which case we view the mention as unambiguous." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.618, + 0.488, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.831, + 0.411, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Textual Representation Format" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.851, + 0.449, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Textual representation format for bi-encoder:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.878, + 0.46, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nC = \\left[ \\mathrm {C L S} \\right] C _ {l} \\left[ m _ {\\text {s t a r t}} \\right] m \\left[ m _ {\\text {e n d}} \\right] C _ {r} \\left[ \\mathrm {S E P} \\right]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.899, + 0.413, + 0.916 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nE = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {C L S} \\end{array} \\right] e _ {t i t l e} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {t i t l e} \\end{array} \\right] e _ {d e s c} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {S E P} \\end{array} \\right]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.465, + 0.883, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Textual representation format for cross-encoder:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.541, + 0.49, + 0.85, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} (C, E) = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {C L S} \\end{array} \\right] C _ {l} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {\\text {s t a r t}} \\end{array} \\right] m \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {\\text {e n d}} \\end{array} \\right] C _ {r} \\\\ [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] e _ {t i t l e} [ m _ {t i t l e} ] e _ {d e s c} [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.537, + 0.884, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(C\\) represents mention context and \\(E\\) represents the textual description of candidate mentions. \\([m_{start}],[m_{end}],[m_{title}]\\) are special tokens." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.596, + 0.715, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Experiment Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.621, + 0.884, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the BERT-large-uncased model as the encoder base, with parameters initialized from the python transformers library. The models are trained on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU. We obtain the AIDA, MSNBC and WNED-WIKI dataset from the BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) repository https://github.com/facebookresearch/BLINK. We trained our model on the AIDA-train split, and evaluated on all three datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.783, + 0.884, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The hyperparameter configurations are as follows. Detailed hyperparameters are shown in Table 5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.842, + 0.676, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Typing System" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.743, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.1 Typing System on NEL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use a tree-like typing system with 187 distinct types on NEL. The typing system is build on the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10856" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.39, + 0.083, + 0.607, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Examples of type lines" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.108, + 0.855, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
EntityTypes
14th Street (Manhattan)Road->RouteOfTransportation->Infrastructure->ArchitecturalStructure->Place
1958 Copa del GeneralíasimoSoccerTournament->Tournament->SportsEvent->SocietalEvent->Event
ATM (song)Song->MusicalWork->Work
Brats (1991 film)Film->Work
Babe RuthBaseballPlayer->Athlete->Person
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.279, + 0.49, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "base of Wikidata types. Table 6 shows some examples of type lines in the system. The most 10 frequent types in NEL are: (Work, Organisation, Place, Event, Person, Activity, FictionalCharacter, Award, Species, MeanOfTransportation)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.372, + 0.471, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.2 Typing System on Traditional Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.394, + 0.49, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We retain 14 top-level types to make CLINK more transferable on different datasets. These types are: (Other, Person, Place, Work, Organization, Event, Fictional Character, Species, Activity, Device, Topical Concept, Ethnic Group, Food, Disease)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.488, + 0.291, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Errors in AIDA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.515, + 0.489, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7 demonstrates some mentions in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL. 50 errors are detected among the 300 randomly sampled data in AIDA." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.577, + 0.251, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.604, + 0.49, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 shows some examples predicted by CLINK and BLINK without type information, which reflects how entity types influence the linking result." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.654, + 0.49, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the first example, models with the bi-encoder structure incorrectly take the \"Gates of Heaven\" entry (which is in fact a documentary film) as the linking result, while CLINK-cross notices the context word \"album\" may indicate the entity type type, and correctly links the mention to the album. In the second example, the \"Home Before Dark\" mention actually refers to a 1997 movie like other movies in the context, however the corresponding entry is absent in the English Wikipedia. The CLINK-cross model is able to identify that the mention should be labelled as NIL, where the other models mistakenly link it to the \"Home Before Dark\" entry, which is an album rather than a movie. We observe that the entity types do help measure the similarity" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.279, + 0.882, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "between mentions and entities, which enhances the performance of CLINK." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.383, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116547/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10857" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.191, + 0.86, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Mention ContextMentionAssumed Entity
Bosnian premier in Turkey for one day visit . ANKARA 1996-08-27TurkeyTurkey (Country)
EU rejects German call to boycott British lamb . Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22EUEuropean Union
U.S. F-14 catches fire while landing in Israel . JERUSALEM 1996-08-25A U.S. fighter plane blew a tyre and ...F-14Grumman F-14 Tomcat
This is the leading story in the Mozambican press on Monday. Reuters has not verified this story and does not vouch for its accuracy.ReutersReuters
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.27, + 0.345, + 0.726, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Examples data in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.587, + 0.88, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Mention Context:...singer, Michelle Branch, during her visit in Japan to promote her album Hotel Paper, for a magazine interview and photoshoot. After the release of Gates of Heaven the group a short break and performed in New York City ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionGates of HeavenGates of HeavenNILGates of Heaven (album)
Mention Context:...Michael Williams and David Collins founded the company in 1994 focusing on independent features, including Never Met Picasso (1996), Home Before Dark (1997), Six Ways To Sunday (1998), ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionHome Before DarkHome Before DarkHome Before DarkNIL
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.777, + 0.883, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Examples of predicted entity by different models. Entity mentions in context are labelled as red and the correct answer is labelled as bold." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10858" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.146, + 0.298, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.17, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.188, + 0.298, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.213, + 0.696, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.231, + 0.321, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract and Section 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.257, + 0.669, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.274, + 0.232, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.3, + 0.489, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.322, + 0.206, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.348, + 0.53, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.365, + 0.249, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.39, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.408, + 0.384, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.433, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.499, + 0.384, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.524, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.574, + 0.384, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.599, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.633, + 0.384, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.658, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.741, + 0.223, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.788, + 0.206, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.847, + 0.24, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10859" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.88, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.88, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.293, + 0.878, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? The instruction materials contain private information about authors and annotators, which may affect the double-blind review process. We have not yet been permitted to publish it." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.415, + 0.88, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.49, + 0.88, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.566, + 0.873, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? There have not yet established an ethics review board committee in our region." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.61, + 0.88, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? These data involve private information about annotators, and we have not yet been permitted to publish it." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10860" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_origin.pdf b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4490c4ee1d1feb40771505a1a9b2ab518a6937e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/980725a0-e77c-4bea-bb00-a61ff06440a3_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8545ffcf0e0f3578be43e0f46c76037315e6b2fbf6785d7be0b6219d52e2078d +size 685357 diff --git a/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/full.md b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95fcb0be492d9711a7cd76c53e2474dfa9259e95 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,469 @@ +# Learn to Not Link: Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking + +Fangwei Zhu $^{1,2}$ , Jifan Yu $^{1,2}$ , Hailong Jin $^{1,2}$ , Juanzi Li $^{1,2}$ , Lei Hou $^{1,2*}$ and Zhifang Sui $^{3}$ + +$^{1}$ Dept. of Computer Sci.&Tech., BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China $^{2}$ KIRC, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Tsinghua University + +$^{3}$ MOE Key Lab of Computational Linguistics, Peking University {zfw19@mails.,yujf18@mails,jinhl15@mails.,lixuanzi@,houlei@}tsinghua.edu.cn {szf@}pku.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Entity linking models have achieved significant success via utilizing pretrained language models to capture semantic features. However, the NIL prediction problem, which aims to identify mentions without a corresponding entity in the knowledge base, has received insufficient attention. We categorize mentions linking to NIL into Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, and propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. NEL takes ambiguous entities as seeds, collects relevant mention context in the Wikipedia corpus, and ensures the presence of mentions linking to NIL by human annotation and entity masking. We conduct a series of experiments with the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder entity linking models, results show that both types of NIL mentions in training data have a significant influence on the accuracy of NIL prediction. Our code and dataset can be accessed at https://github.com/solitaryzero/NIL_EL. + +# 1 Introduction + +Entity Linking (EL) aims to map entity mentions in free texts to their corresponding entities in a given Knowledge Base (KB). Entity linking acts as a bridge between unstructured text and structured knowledge, and benefits various downstream tasks like question answering (Luo et al., 2018) and knowledge extraction (Chen et al., 2021). + +However, not all entity mentions correspond to a specific entity in the KB that suits the mention context (Ling et al., 2015). Take Table 1 as an example, Peter Blackburn is actually a journalist, and the householder is a common phrase rather than an entity. These two mentions do not refer to any entity in the given KB. The identification of these mentions is referred to as NIL prediction. Therefore, to tackle NIL prediction, the entity linking model + +needs to select mentions whose references are absent in KB, and link them to a special placeholder $\text{NIL}$ . Dredze et al. (2010) states NIL prediction as one of the key issues in entity linking, which may lead to a decrease in the recall of entity linking systems. Meanwhile, the incorrectly linked entities may provide false information to downstream tasks. + +There have been some earlier representation learning based researches that take NIL prediction into consideration (Eshel et al., 2017; Lazic et al., 2015; Peters et al., 2019). They identify NIL mentions by setting a vector similarity threshold or viewing NIL as a special entity. Recently, pretrained language model (PLM) based models (Wu et al., 2020; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Cao et al., 2021) have achieved great success for their great transferability and expandability. However, these models generally assume that there always exists a correct entity for each mention in the knowledge base, which leaves the NIL prediction problem without adequate attention. + +Previous entity linking datasets have paid insufficient attention to the NIL prediction problem. For example, some of the previous datasets like AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011) view it as an auxiliary task, while others like MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017) does not require NIL prediction at all. There does not yet exist a strong benchmark for the ability on NIL prediction. + +In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. About $30\%$ of the mentions in NEL do not have their corresponding entity in the candidate entity set, which requires models to identify these mentions rather than linking them to the wrong candidates. In NEL construction, we take ambiguous entities as seeds, and build the dataset by mining mention contexts related to seed entities on the Wikipedia corpus. Then, human annotators are + +
Missing Entity
Mention ContextEU rejects German call to boycott British lamb. Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22
Peter Blackburn (Bishop)Peter Blackburn (d.1616) was a Scottish scholar and prelate. He was the second Protestant Bishop of Aberdeen.
Peter Blackburn (MP)Peter Blackburn (1811 – 20 May 1870) was a British Conservative Party politician.
Peter Blackburn (Badminton)Peter Grant Blackburn (born 25 March 1968) is an Australian badminton player who affiliated with the Ballarat Badminton Association.
Non-Entity Phrase
Mention ContextMost Hindus accept that there is a duty to have a family during the house-holder stage of life, as debt to family lineage called Pitra Rin (Father's Debt) and so are unlikely to avoid having children altogether ...
The Householder (Film)The Householder (Hindi title: Gharbar) is a 1963 film by Merchant Ivory Productions, with a screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala ...
The Householder (Novel)The Householder is a 1960 English-language novel by Ruth Prawer Jhab-vala ...
+ +Table 1: Example of mentions that should be linked to NIL and their potential candidate entities. Mentions are labeled as red. + +asked to identify whether the mentions correspond to a candidate entity or not, and we further perform entity masking to ensure a fair proportion of NIL data of about $30\%$ . + +In NIL prediction, we propose to use the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder structures as the model backbone, and further integrate type information by adding an entity typing subtask. We combine semantic and type similarity as the final similarity score, and identify NIL mentions by setting a similarity threshold. + +We conduct a series of experiments on both NEL and previous entity linking datasets. Experimental results show that the models suffer from an accuracy drop when taking NIL prediction into consideration, indicating that the accuracy may be inflated without the NIL prediction task, and NEL could better diagnose the performance of different models. We also conducted ablation studies on how type information and NIL examples affect the models. We discover that the entity typing subtask yields better embedding even when type similarity is not used, and both types of NIL examples in training data would boost the ability of NIL prediction. + +Our contributions can be concluded as: + +- We categorize the NIL prediction problem into two patterns: Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, where the latter one has not received sufficient attention in previous works. + +- We propose an entity linking dataset NEL focusing on NIL prediction, which covers two patterns of NIL data and could act as a benchmark for diagnosing the ability of NIL prediction. +- We conducted a series of experiments, whose results demonstrate that the accuracy of models may be inflated when not taking NIL prediction into consideration. Meanwhile, both patterns of NIL data in training are essential for triggering the ability of NIL prediction. + +# 2 Preliminary + +Entity mentions $M = \{m_i\}$ refer to text spans potentially corresponding to entities in a document $D = (w_1, w_2, \dots, w_n)$ , where $w_i$ is either a plain token or a mention. Each mention $m_i$ may correspond to an entity $e_i \in E$ in the entity set $E$ of knowledge base $\mathcal{KB}$ . + +Definition 1. Entity linking aims to find an optimal mapping $\Gamma : M \Rightarrow E$ , which maps entity mentions $M = \{m_i\}$ to their corresponding entities $E = \{e_i\}$ , where $e_i \in \mathcal{KB}$ . + +The NIL prediction problem is to determine whether an entity mention $m$ is absent from the knowledge base $\mathcal{KB}$ . When there does not exist a proper entity $e \in \mathcal{KB}$ for the given mention $m$ , + +![](images/6e37f93f68c99d676297e6099dddeae0ffc36f5d7c8fa5bda4d4f8b1ea8660ed.jpg) +Figure 1: An illustration of how NEL is constructed. We select ambiguous entities as seeds, taking their alias as potential mentions to discover mention contexts from Wikipedia. The entries are annotated by human annotators, and entity masking is performed on some entries to control the portion of NIL data. + +the model should link $m$ to a special NIL entity, indicating that the mention is unlinkable. + +Definition 2. Entity linking with NIL prediction aims to find an optimal mapping $\Gamma : M \Rightarrow E \cup \{NIL\}$ , where NIL is a special placeholder and $m$ correspond to NIL only when there is no correct answer in the candidate entity set $E$ . + +As demonstrated in Table 1, there exist two situations in real-world entity linking where NIL prediction should be taken into consideration: + +- Missing Entity: The mention $m$ refers to certain entity $e$ that has not been yet included in $\mathcal{KB}$ , i.e. $m \Rightarrow e \notin \mathcal{KB}$ . For example, in the upper half of Table 1, the mention Peter Blackburn refers to a certain journalist, while entries in English Wikipedia include only people with other occupations, leading to the mention linking to NIL. +- Non-Entity Phrase: The mention $m$ refers to a common phrase that is not usually viewed as an entity, i.e. $m \nRightarrow e$ . For example, the mention the householder in the lower half of Table 1 refers to a concept rather than a film or novel. + +# 3 Dataset Construction + +There does not yet exist a strong benchmark on NIL prediction. We manually annotated 300 examples + +with their mentions linking to NIL from the widely used entity linking dataset AIDA1, and discover that about $10\%$ of these mentions should actually link to an entity. For example, the mention "EU" in "EU rejects German" should be linked to the European Union rather than NIL (See Appendix D for details). Meanwhile, NIL mentions in AIDA fall mostly in the Missing Entity category. The incorrect and imbalanced data for NIL prediction indicates that the importance of NIL prediction is currently underestimated. + +In this section, we propose an entity linking dataset named NEL, which focuses on the NIL prediction problem. The construction process is demonstrated in Figure 1. + +Unlike normal entity linking data, there does not exist annotated references for mentions linking to NIL, and the portion of NIL data in the text corpus is unknown. Hyperlinks in Wikipedia can be viewed as mentions linking to non-NIL entities, from which we can find the aliases of entities. We assume that when an alias does not appear as a hyperlink in a certain context, it may be identified as a mention linking to NIL. In this way, we collect such contexts as the raw data. The raw data is then annotated by humans to ensure correctness, and we further mask out some answer entities in the candidate set to control the percentage of NIL in + +
Dataset# DataAnnotatedNIL percentage%Missing Entity%Non-Entity Phrase
AIDA34956✓20.41%73%*10%*
MSNBC654✓0%--
WNED-Wiki240000×0%--
NEL (ours)9924✓33.57%17%83%
+ +Table 2: Statistics of the NEL dataset compared with previous entity linking datasets. *The percentage of two NIL patterns in AIDA is calculated from 300 randomly sampled NIL data, and data with errors do not count as any pattern. + +answers. + +# 3.1 Data Collection + +Levin (1977) states that the title of creative works could be a place, a personal name, or a certain abstract concept like the choric embodiment of some collectivity (The Clouds, The Birds) or stock types (The Alchemist, Le Misanthrope), which would naturally lead to the two situations where a mention links to NIL. The absence of the referenced entity from the KB would lead to Missing Entity, while an abstract concept not viewed as an entity would lead to Non-Entity Phrase. + +To discover NIL mentions of both types, we start by taking entities that share an alias with other entities as seeds. We assume that a mention referring to multiple entities has a higher probability of linking to a Missing Entity outside the KB, and the complex meaning of the mention will lead to Non-Entity Phrase. Thus, the aliases of ambiguous seed entities would be good starting points for mining NIL mentions. + +Entity Selection We further filter ambiguous entities to remove low-quality seeds. First, we remove noise instances like template pages, and entities with less than 5 hyperlinks are also removed. Meanwhile, we discarded entities with a probability greater than $50\%$ of being the linking result, as these entities can generally be considered to be unambiguous and lack difficulty. Finally, 1000 entities are sampled as the seed entity set $E_{s}$ . + +We use a typing system based on Wikidata to identify the type of selected entities. We view the instance of relation as the type indicator, and utilize the subclass of relation to build a tree-form type system. The detailed type system can be found in Appendix C. + +Mention Discovery We build an alias table from the 2021 Wikipedia dump by extracting alias-entity pairs $(m,e)$ from internal hyperlinks. All alias + +$m$ related to entities in the seed entity set $E_{s}$ are gathered as the mention set $M$ . For each mention $m \in M$ , we look for its occurrence throughout the Wikipedia corpus (whether it appears as a hyperlink or not) to obtain the entry tuple $(C_{l}, m, C_{r}, E_{m})$ , where $C_{l}$ and $C_{r}$ represent contexts left and right to the entity mention $m$ , and $E_{m}$ represents the candidate entities set of $m$ . For each mention $m$ , we sampled 5 entries where $m$ appears as a hyperlink and 5 entries where $m$ appears in plain text to balance the number of positive and negative examples, and a total of 10,000 entries are collected. + +# 3.2 Human Annotation and Post-processing + +We perform annotation on the above entries with 3 annotators. The annotators are provided with the mention context $(C_l, m, C_r)$ and candidate entities $E_m$ . Each candidate entity $e$ consists of its title, textual description, and Wikipedia URL. The annotators are asked to choose the answer entity $a \in E_m$ corresponding to the mention $m$ , or $a = NIL$ if none of the candidates are correct. + +An expert will further investigate entries in which annotators fail to reach a consensus. The expert is a senior annotator with essential knowledge of entity linking, and will confirm the final annotation result after carefully reading through the context and candidate entities. We use the annotation result as the final answer $a$ if there is an agreement between 3 annotators, and the entity chosen by the expert otherwise. The annotated tuple $(C_l,m,C_r,E_m,a)$ acts as the final entry of our dataset. + +To further simulate the situation where new emerging entities do not appear in knowledge bases, we perform entity masking on positive entries. We randomly sample $10\%$ entries where $a \neq NIL$ , and mask the correct entity in the candidate set $E_{m}$ . In this case, as the correct answer is removed from the candidate list, we have $a = NIL$ , i.e. the mention $m$ corresponds to the empty entity NIL. + +![](images/187d4d5e1d3f165d1a370301599dc08dc9dc0509daa8512a564f8d0ea2efee08.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall structure of PLM-based retrieval models. Candidates which are confusing in the semantic space may be more distinguishable in the type space. Mentions linking to NIL frequently differ from their candidates in their types, so we combine semantic similarity with type similarity for NIL prediction. + +![](images/aad5c3b877f42419d4829cd65c3ad0ec9b9b506b272f43060a25e453af09d4b7.jpg) + +# 3.3 Dataset Statistics + +Table 2 demonstrates the properties of the NEL dataset. NEL includes 6,593 positive examples and 3,331 negative examples, covering 1,000 mentions and 3,840 related entities. Each mention has an average of 3.80 candidate entities. The inter-annotator agreement of NEL is $94.61\%$ , indicating that the expert calibrated about $5\%$ of the data. The full dataset is split into train/validation/test sets by the ratio of $80\%/10\%/10\%$ . + +NEL contains a fair number of entries, and is human-annotated to ensure correctness. Compared with previous entity linking datasets, NEL has a higher percentage of NIL data, which could better diagnose the ability of different models in NIL prediction. Meanwhile, mentions linking to NIL in AIDA mostly fall in the Missing Entity situation, while NEL focuses more on the Non-Entity Phrase situation, thus complementing the insufficient attention on Non-Entity Phrase in NIL prediction. + +# 4 Entity Linking with NIL prediction + +A mention links to NIL when all of its candidate entities fail to match its context. A common paradigm of NIL prediction is to compute the similarity scores between the mention context and candidates, and judge its linking result on the base of similarities. + +# 4.1 Scoring Similarities + +Bi-encoder and cross-encoder are widely adopted scorer structures, as they are well compatible with pretrained language models. Bi-encoder encodes mention contexts and entities into the same dense vector space, while cross-encoder views similarity scoring as a sequence classification task: + +$$ +s _ {b i} (c, e) = \sigma (f (c) \cdot g (e)) \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +s _ {c r o s s} (c, e) = \sigma (\mathbf {W h} ([ c, e ]) + \mathbf {b}) \tag {2} +$$ + +where $f,g,h$ are PLM-based encoders, $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are trainable variables, and $\sigma$ refers to the sigmoid function. + +The bi-encoder structure allows precomputing entity embeddings in knowledge bases, which enables efficient retrieval in real-world applications. Compared with bi-encoder, cross-encoder better captures the relation between context and entities with the cross attention mechanism, thus demonstrating higher accuracy. + +# 4.2 Integrating Entity Types + +Previous entity linking models (Gupta et al., 2017; Onoe and Durrett, 2020; Raiman and Raiman, 2018) have proved that entity types do help models better disambiguate between candidate entities. + +The type information can be integrated into bi-encoders and cross-encoders by adding a typing layer. In the bi-encoder structure, the mention types + +Table 3: Experimental results on NEL and previous datasets. Non-NAC, NAC, and OAC represent non-NIL accuracy, NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. *Results of GENRE on AIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are taken from the original paper (Cao et al., 2021). + +
NEL (our dataset)AIDA w/ NILAIDA w/o NILMSNBCWNED-WIKI
Non-NACNACOACNon-NACNACOACOACOACOAC
BLINK-bi72.2788.5977.7464.5469.5965.0182.6170.8658.56
CLINK-bi79.2479.2879.2575.9866.3675.0983.2673.2958.99
GENRE*54.0062.8456.96---88.6088.1071.70
BLINK-cross84.0988.8985.7083.0845.1679.5887.4982.0269.48
CLINK-cross86.9789.1987.7184.4258.5382.0388.1689.7072.43
+ +$t_c$ and entity types $t_e$ are predicted separately: + +$$ +t _ {c} = \sigma \left(W _ {c} f (c) + b _ {c}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +$$ +t _ {e} = \sigma \left(W _ {e} g (e) + b _ {e}\right) \tag {4} +$$ + +while they are simultaneously predicted in the cross-encoder structure: + +$$ +\left[ t _ {c}, t _ {e} \right] = \sigma \left(W f ([ c, e ]) + b\right) \tag {5} +$$ + +where $\sigma$ represents the sigmoid function and $W_{c}, b_{c}, W_{e}, b_{e}, W, b$ are trainable parameters. + +To tackle the label imbalance between types, we use the focal loss (Lin et al., 2017) on the typing task: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {t} = - \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {t}} \left(y _ {i} \left(1 - t _ {i}\right) ^ {\gamma} \log t _ {i} + \left(1 - y _ {i}\right) t _ {i} ^ {\gamma} \log \left(1 - t _ {i}\right)\right) \tag {6} +$$ + +where $n_t$ is the total number of types in the type system, $\gamma$ is a hyperparameter, $y_i$ is the golden label of the $i$ -th type and $t_i$ is the predicted label of the $i$ -th type. In bi-encoder, $\mathcal{L}_t$ is the average of loss on $t_c$ and $t_e$ , while in cross-encoder $\mathcal{L}_t$ is directly calculated from $[t_c, t_e]$ . + +We train the semantic encoder with binary classification loss $\mathcal{L}_s$ , and combine $\mathcal{L}_s$ with $\mathcal{L}_t$ as the final loss $\mathcal{L}$ : + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \mathcal {L} _ {s} + \mathcal {L} _ {t} \tag {7} +$$ + +# 4.3 Identifying Mentions Linking to NIL + +The type similarity is computed with cosine similarity, and the final score is a weighted sum between type similarity and semantic similarity: + +$$ +s _ {t} (c, e) = \cos \left(t _ {c}, t _ {e}\right) \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +s (c, e) = \lambda s _ {s} (c, e) + (1 - \lambda) s _ {t} (c, e) \tag {9} +$$ + +where $\lambda$ is a hyperparameter. + +For each entry $(C_l, m, C_r, E_m, a)$ , we concatenate $(C_l, m, C_r)$ to form the context $c$ . In the training step, for each candidate entity $e \in E_m$ , we + +view $(c,e)$ as a positive example if $e = a$ , and as a negative example if $a = N I L$ or $e\neq a$ + +During evaluation, the similarity score $s(c, e)$ is computed between context $c$ and each candidate entity $e$ . If there exist entities with a score equal to or higher than the nil threshold $\epsilon = 0.5$ , we choose the entity with the highest similarity score as the answer; If all entities fail to reach the threshold, then the mention $m$ links to NIL. + +$$ +a = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \arg \max _ {e} s (c, e), & \exists e, s (c, e) \geq \epsilon \\ N I L, & \forall e, s (c, e) < \epsilon \end{array} \right. \tag {10} +$$ + +# 5 Experiments + +We conduct a series of experiments on two types of datasets, which test the different ability of entity linking models: (1) NEL that tests the ability of NIL prediction; (2) previous EL datasets that tests the ability of entity disambiguation. We choose the following models for comparison: BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) that uses the bi-encoder and cross-encoder alone to score candidate entities, CLINK that integrates type information with BLINK, and GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) that generates the linking result with a sequence-to-sequence model. + +# 5.1 Main Experiment Results + +We trained and tested the models on NEL, with BERT-large as the encoder base of BLINK and CLINK, and BART-large as the backbone of GENRE, to observe their ability in NIL prediction. We also experimented on previous entity linking datasets to observe the disambiguation ability of different models. The models are trained on the AIDA-YAGO2-train (Hoffart et al., 2011) dataset, and tested on AIDA-YAGO2-testb, MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017). + +Table 4: Experimental results on the influence of the entity typing task on NEL. OAC indicates the overall accuracy of entity linking. The overall accuracy with typing is achieved without using the type similarity score. + +
ModelCtxt Type Acc.Cand Type Acc.OAC w/ TypingOAC w/o Typing
Bi-encoder83.7593.4678.3577.74
Cross-encoder83.9598.0187.4183.67
+ +![](images/02e30405e73002b7378d2bc1a22777bb96a4c24cb2ba4a58180d370f3daabd8f.jpg) +Figure 3: Ablation study on the influence of NIL training data. The x-axis indicates the percentage of used NIL data or Non-Entity Phrase data in the training set. + +![](images/263bc244634f9c1b1445bb160d05b1135b3a88b60cd36aa8e8fea317e4080aac.jpg) + +![](images/24005887099eaae4c374ea6b9eeba60e1897c3e3afef1fec1f89daf1fc351797.jpg) + +187 distinct types are used in experiments on NEL, and considering that the entity type distribution may be different across datasets, we use a type system with only 14 top-level entity types on previous datasets to make CLINK more transferable (See Appendix C for details). We retain the same textual representation format with BLINK (see Appendix A), while using 128 as the length of context sequences and entity descriptions. All models are implemented with PyTorch and optimized with the Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) optimizer with a learning rate of 1e-5. + +Table 3 shows the evaluation results, from which some insights could be discovered: + +Type Information Matters. CLINK with cross-encoder structure achieves the highest accuracy on almost all datasets, and is still comparable with GENRE on AIDA, from which we may assert that taking type information into consideration is helpful even without NIL prediction. Meanwhile, on both structures, the overall accuracy of CLINK outperforms BLINK on all datasets, proving that the entity typing task assists both bi-encoder and cross-encoder distinguish correct entities. + +Encoder Structure. The cross-encoder structure generally performs better than bi-encoder, but we observe that sometimes bi-encoders show de + +cent ability in detecting NIL mentions, especially when type information is not utilized. BLINK-bi achieves the highest NIL accuracy score of 69.59 on AIDA with NIL, and has a score of 88.59 on NEL, which is comparable with the best-performing CLINK-cross. This phenomenon indicates that cross-encoders may be more prone to overfitting, while entity types would alleviate this tendency. + +NIL Entries. On the AIDA dataset, we observe that the models generally suffer from a drop in accuracy when taking NIL entries into consideration, and the drop is more obvious in bi-encoders. This may indicate that the performance of models is inflated without NIL prediction, and NIL entries may confuse the models in practical application. + +# 5.2 Ablation Study + +# 5.2.1 Influence of the Entity Typing Task + +We conducted experiments to observe how the entity typing task influences the model. We trained the model with both $\mathcal{L}_t$ and $\mathcal{L}_s$ as loss, while setting $\lambda = 1$ during evaluation to ignore the influence of type similarity scores. Results shown in Table 4 reflects two observations: + +First, candidate type predictions benefit from mention context. We observe that when changing the structure from bi-encoder to cross-encoder, the + +type prediction accuracy on candidates raises by $5\%$ , where the accuracy on contexts remains unchanged. This is likely because the context helps narrow down the type range, while the context type prediction generally remains unaffected by entity descriptions. + +Second, unifying the entity typing task in the training process leads to higher overall accuracy, even when the type similarity score is not taken into consideration in the evaluation, which can be demonstrated by the improved score of OAC w/ Typing compared to OAC w/o Typing on both models. This may indicate that predicting entity types would help the model learn semantic embeddings with higher quality. + +# 5.2.2 Influence of NIL Training Data + +Compared with previous datasets like AIDA, NEL contains more NIL mentions of the Non-Entity Phrase type. We trained the models with different numbers of Non-Entity Phrase examples to observe the influence of NIL Training Data. + +As demonstrated by Figure 3, all models suffer from a great decline in NIL accuracy when no NIL examples are used during the training stage, and bi-encoder is more prone to the accuracy drop. However, by using only $25\%$ of Non-Entity Phrase examples in training, the NIL accuracy would recover to a decent level. Further adding NIL examples has little impact on cross-encoder models, but bi-encoder models still constantly benefit from additional data. + +Besides, ignoring NIL data with the Non-Entity Phrase type will also harm the NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. Both types of NIL training data are necessary to reach to best performance. + +We discover that entity linking models may be unaware of the NIL mentions when there is insufficient training data. A small amount of training data is enough for cross-encoder models to reach a reasonable accuracy, while bi-encoder models constantly benefit from additional training data. + +# 6 Related Work + +PLM-based Models in Entity Linking. Using pretrained language models (PLM) to capture semantic information is widely adopted in recent entity linking models. BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) marks the mention in context with pre-defined special tokens, and takes BERT as the encoder base. Two structures are adopted by BLINK to handle + +different situations: bi-encoder for fast dense retrieval, and cross-encoder for further disambiguation. MOLEMAN (Fitzgerald et al., 2021) searches for similar mention contexts instead of entities, which better captures the diverse aspects an entity reflects in various contexts. GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) finetunes the sequence-to-sequence model BART, directly generating the unique entity name according to the mention context. + +Research on NIL Prediction. The NIL prediction problem has been long viewed as an auxiliary task of entity linking. Some entity linking datasets (AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011), TAC-KBP series (McNamee and Dang, 2009)) take the NIL prediction problem into consideration, while some (ACE and MSNBC) (Ratinov et al., 2011) omit mentions linking to NIL. Some research has already been conducted on the NIL prediction problem. Lazic et al. (2015) and Peters et al. (2019) set a score threshold to filter reasonable candidates, and mentions with no candidate score above the threshold are linked to NIL. Sil and Florian (2016); Kolitsas et al. (2018) views the NIL placeholder as a special entity, and selecting it as the best match indicates that the mention refers to no entities in the given KB. However, recent entity linking models, which use pretrained language models (PLM) as encoder bases, generally take the in-KB setting, which assumes that each mention has a valid golden entity in the KB (Wu et al., 2020). + +Entity Type Assisted Entity Linking. Entity types can effectively assist entity linking and have been studied in various works. Gupta et al. (2017) jointly encodes mention context, entity description, and Freebase types with bidirectional LSTM to maximize the cosine similarity. DeepType (Raiman and Raiman, 2018) predicts the type probability of each token and gathers relevant tokens to predict the entity types, which would help eliminate candidates with incompatible types. Onoe and Durrett (2020) views entity types as a training objective rather than a feature, predicting fine-grained Wikipedia category tags to select the most relevant entity. + +# 7 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. We observe that mentions linking to NIL can be categorized into two patterns: Missing Entity and + +Non-Entity Phrase, but the latter one has not been paid sufficient attention. We propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on NIL prediction. The dataset is built upon the Wikipedia corpus by choosing ambiguous entities as seeds and collecting relevant mention contexts. NEL is human-annotated to ensure correctness, and entity masking is further performed to control the percentage of NIL. + +We conducted a series of experiments to examine the performance of PLM-based models on different datasets. Experimental results indicate that the accuracy without considering NIL prediction would be inflated. Meanwhile, sufficient data of both NIL types during training is essential to trigger the ability of NIL prediction. In the future, we may further try to integrate entity types into the pretraining process and explore type transfer between datasets. + +# Acknowledgements + +We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This paper is supported by a grant from the Institute for Guo Qiang, Tsinghua University (2019GQB0003). + +# Limitations + +Our work still exist some limitations. First, we choose an entity typing system on the base of Wiki-data tags, however, the granularity of the typing system remains to be discussed. A system with too many types would introduce noise to long-tail types, while insufficient types would weaken the disambiguation ability of type similarity. Thus, building a type system with adequate granularity remains a challenge. + +Second, we combine the entity typing task with PLM-based semantic encoders, which require a fixed type system and further finetuning. Integrating the entity typing task into the pretraining process may enhance the transferability of the model and remove the dependency on a fixed type system. + +Potential Risks. Our proposed dataset NEL centers on ambiguous entities, whose type distribution may not remain the same with other datasets. A potential risk is that the model trained on NEL may experience under-exposure of other entity types, which would damage their transferability and lead to undesired outputs on other datasets. + +# Ethics Statement + +In this section, we will discuss the ethical considerations of our work. + +Licenses and terms. The Wikipedia corpus and Wikidata types are obtained via the Wikimedia dump $^2$ , under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license $^3$ . AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are shared under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. These datasets have been widely used in entity linking research, and we believe that they have been anonymized and desensitized. + +Human Annotation. We recruited 3 human annotators without a background of expertise in annotation, and 1 expert annotator with adequate knowledge in entity linking for checking. These annotators are employed by commercial data annotation companies. We have paid these recruited annotators with adequate rewards under the agreed working time and price. The annotators are well informed about how these annotated data will be used and released, which has been recorded in the contract. + +Intended use. NEL is an entity linking dataset focusing on the NIL prediction problem. Researchers are intended to use NEL for examining the ability of NIL prediction of newly created entity linking models. AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are intended for entity linking research, which is compatible with our work. + +# References + +Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Lihu Chen, Gaël Varoquaux, and Fabian M Suchanek. 2021. A lightweight neural model for biomedical entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12657-12665. +Silviu Cucerzan. 2007. Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In Proceedings of the 2007 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pages 708-716. + +Mark Dredze, Paul McNamee, Delip Rao, Adam Gerber, and Tim Finin. 2010. Entity disambiguation for knowledge base population. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 277-285. +Yotam Eshel, Noam Cohen, Kira Radinsky, Shaul Markovitch, Ikuya Yamada, and Omer Levy. 2017. Named entity disambiguation for noisy text. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 58-68. +Nicholas Fitzgerald, Dan Bikel, Jan Botha, Dan Gillick, Tom Kwiatkowski, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Moleman: Mention-only linking of entities with a mention annotation network. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 278-285. +Nitish Gupta, Sameer Singh, and Dan Roth. 2017. Entity linking via joint encoding of types, descriptions, and context. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2681-2690. +Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 782-792. +Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. +Nikolaos Kolitsas, Octavian-Eugen Ganea, and Thomas Hofmann. 2018. End-to-end neural entity linking. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 519-529. +Nevena Lazic, Amarnag Subramanya, Michael Ringgaard, and Fernando Pereira. 2015. Plato: A selective context model for entity resolution. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:503-515. +Harry Levin. 1977. The title as a literary genre. *The Modern language review*, 72(4):xxiii-xxxvi. +Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dólar. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980-2988. +Xiao Ling, Sameer Singh, and Daniel S Weld. 2015. Design challenges for entity linking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:315-328. + +Kangqi Luo, Fengli Lin, Xusheng Luo, and Kenny Zhu. 2018. Knowledge base question answering via encoding of complex query graphs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2185-2194. +Paul McNamee and Hoa Trang Dang. 2009. Overview of the tac 2009 knowledge base population track. In Text analysis conference (TAC), volume 17, pages 111-113. +Yasumasa Onoe and Greg Durrett. 2020. Fine-grained entity typing for domain independent entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8576-8583. +Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert Logan, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 43-54. +Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32. +Lev Ratinov, Dan Roth, Doug Downey, and Mike Anderson. 2011. Local and global algorithms for disambiguation to wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1375-1384. +Avirup Sil and Radu Florian. 2016. One for all: Towards language independent named entity linking. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2255-2264. +Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6397-6407. + +# A Details about the NEL Dataset Construction + +# A.1 Corpora + +The NEL dataset is built from the 2021-07 English Wikipedia dump under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. We take the hyperlinks in the raw xml dump as entity mentions, and retain at most 128 tokens around the mentions as their context. We take 64 tokens left to the mention and 64 tokens right to the mention by default, and more tokens will be included in one side if the other side does not contain enough + +
HyperparameterNEL & AIDA w/ NIL
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.50.5
ε0.50.5
Epoch4{1, 4}4{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time2 hrs-3.5 hrs-
HyperparameterAIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC & WNED-WIKI
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.9[0.0, 1.0]0.9[0.0, 1.0]
ε0-0-
Epoch1{1, 4}1{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time4 hrs-3 hrs-
+ +Table 5: The hyperparameters used in the training process. + +tokens. We then discard tokens from both ends to ensure that the context plus the mention do not exceed the 128 token limit. Media files (image, audio) and Lua commands are discarded during preprocess. + +# A.2 Data Selection + +Entries with the following features are viewed as noise and discarded: + +- The mention context contains the token $^{\star \star}$ which is usually a list or formula; +- The mention with only 1 candidate entity, which does not pose much challenge; +- The mention with more than 20 candidate entities, which is far too challenging; +- The mention appears as a sub-span of a word; +- The mention has a probability of over $50\%$ of linking to a certain candidate entity, in which case we view the mention as unambiguous. + +# A.3 Textual Representation Format + +Textual representation format for bi-encoder: + +$$ +C = \left[ \mathrm {C L S} \right] C _ {l} \left[ m _ {\text {s t a r t}} \right] m \left[ m _ {\text {e n d}} \right] C _ {r} \left[ \mathrm {S E P} \right] +$$ + +$$ +E = \left[ \begin{array}{c} \text {C L S} \end{array} \right] e _ {t i t l e} \left[ \begin{array}{c} m _ {t i t l e} \end{array} \right] e _ {d e s c} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \text {S E P} \end{array} \right] +$$ + +Textual representation format for cross-encoder: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} (C, E) = \left[ \begin{array}{c} \text {C L S} \end{array} \right] C _ {l} \left[ \begin{array}{c} m _ {\text {s t a r t}} \end{array} \right] m \left[ \begin{array}{c} m _ {\text {e n d}} \end{array} \right] C _ {r} \\ [ \mathrm {S E P} ] e _ {t i t l e} [ m _ {t i t l e} ] e _ {d e s c} [ \mathrm {S E P} ] \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $C$ represents mention context and $E$ represents the textual description of candidate mentions. $[m_{start}],[m_{end}],[m_{title}]$ are special tokens. + +# B Experiment Details + +We use the BERT-large-uncased model as the encoder base, with parameters initialized from the python transformers library. The models are trained on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU. We obtain the AIDA, MSNBC and WNED-WIKI dataset from the BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) repository https://github.com/facebookresearch/BLINK. We trained our model on the AIDA-train split, and evaluated on all three datasets. + +The hyperparameter configurations are as follows. Detailed hyperparameters are shown in Table 5. + +# C Typing System + +# C.1 Typing System on NEL + +We use a tree-like typing system with 187 distinct types on NEL. The typing system is build on the + +Table 6: Examples of type lines + +
EntityTypes
14th Street (Manhattan)Road->RouteOfTransportation->Infrastructure->ArchitecturalStructure->Place
1958 Copa del GeneralíasimoSoccerTournament->Tournament->SportsEvent->SocietalEvent->Event
ATM (song)Song->MusicalWork->Work
Brats (1991 film)Film->Work
Babe RuthBaseballPlayer->Athlete->Person
+ +base of Wikidata types. Table 6 shows some examples of type lines in the system. The most 10 frequent types in NEL are: (Work, Organisation, Place, Event, Person, Activity, FictionalCharacter, Award, Species, MeanOfTransportation). + +# C.2 Typing System on Traditional Datasets + +We retain 14 top-level types to make CLINK more transferable on different datasets. These types are: (Other, Person, Place, Work, Organization, Event, Fictional Character, Species, Activity, Device, Topical Concept, Ethnic Group, Food, Disease) + +# D Errors in AIDA + +Table 7 demonstrates some mentions in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL. 50 errors are detected among the 300 randomly sampled data in AIDA. + +# E Case Study + +Table 8 shows some examples predicted by CLINK and BLINK without type information, which reflects how entity types influence the linking result. + +In the first example, models with the bi-encoder structure incorrectly take the "Gates of Heaven" entry (which is in fact a documentary film) as the linking result, while CLINK-cross notices the context word "album" may indicate the entity type type, and correctly links the mention to the album. In the second example, the "Home Before Dark" mention actually refers to a 1997 movie like other movies in the context, however the corresponding entry is absent in the English Wikipedia. The CLINK-cross model is able to identify that the mention should be labelled as NIL, where the other models mistakenly link it to the "Home Before Dark" entry, which is an album rather than a movie. We observe that the entity types do help measure the similarity + +between mentions and entities, which enhances the performance of CLINK. + +
Mention ContextMentionAssumed Entity
Bosnian premier in Turkey for one day visit . ANKARA 1996-08-27TurkeyTurkey (Country)
EU rejects German call to boycott British lamb . Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22EUEuropean Union
U.S. F-14 catches fire while landing in Israel . JERUSALEM 1996-08-25A U.S. fighter plane blew a tyre and ...F-14Grumman F-14 Tomcat
This is the leading story in the Mozambican press on Monday. Reuters has not verified this story and does not vouch for its accuracy.ReutersReuters
+ +Table 7: Examples data in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL. + +
Mention Context:...singer, Michelle Branch, during her visit in Japan to promote her album Hotel Paper, for a magazine interview and photoshoot. After the release of Gates of Heaven the group a short break and performed in New York City ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionGates of HeavenGates of HeavenNILGates of Heaven (album)
Mention Context:...Michael Williams and David Collins founded the company in 1994 focusing on independent features, including Never Met Picasso (1996), Home Before Dark (1997), Six Ways To Sunday (1998), ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionHome Before DarkHome Before DarkHome Before DarkNIL
+ +Table 8: Examples of predicted entity by different models. Entity mentions in context are labelled as red and the correct answer is labelled as bold. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Section Limitations + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Section Limitations + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Abstract and Section 1 + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Section 3 + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +No response. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +Section Ethical Considerations + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +Section Ethical Considerations + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +Section Ethical Considerations + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Section Ethical Considerations + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Section 3 + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Section 5 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Appendix B + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5 +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5 + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3 + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? The instruction materials contain private information about authors and annotators, which may affect the double-blind review process. We have not yet been permitted to publish it. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section Ethical Considerations +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section Ethical Considerations +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? There have not yet established an ethics review board committee in our region. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? These data involve private information about annotators, and we have not yet been permitted to publish it. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/images.zip b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d75352397e50559c4de5aca8c8c205f597c5490d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0389752ff8cef2f4b0afb04160e040d857ed2b41ed02f2a3d85eb71c82187d76 +size 764057 diff --git a/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/layout.json b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6139e321deda8c96352cd31fce9f31399e596b7e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learn to Not Link_ Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11415 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 76, + 493, + 95 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 76, + 493, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 76, + 493, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learn to Not Link: Exploring NIL Prediction in Entity Linking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fangwei Zhu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jifan Yu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Hailong Jin" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Juanzi Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Lei Hou" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Zhifang Sui" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 105, + 518, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 121, + 505, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 121, + 505, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 121, + 505, + 147 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 121, + 505, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dept. of Computer Sci.&Tech., BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 121, + 505, + 147 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 121, + 505, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KIRC, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Tsinghua University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 524, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 524, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 524, + 190 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 524, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MOE Key Lab of Computational Linguistics, Peking University {zfw19@mails.,yujf18@mails,jinhl15@mails.,lixuanzi@,houlei@}tsinghua.edu.cn {szf@}pku.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity linking models have achieved significant success via utilizing pretrained language models to capture semantic features. However, the NIL prediction problem, which aims to identify mentions without a corresponding entity in the knowledge base, has received insufficient attention. We categorize mentions linking to NIL into Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, and propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. NEL takes ambiguous entities as seeds, collects relevant mention context in the Wikipedia corpus, and ensures the presence of mentions linking to NIL by human annotation and entity masking. We conduct a series of experiments with the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder entity linking models, results show that both types of NIL mentions in training data have a significant influence on the accuracy of NIL prediction. Our code and dataset can be accessed at https://github.com/solitaryzero/NIL_EL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 513, + 155, + 527 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 513, + 155, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 513, + 155, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity Linking (EL) aims to map entity mentions in free texts to their corresponding entities in a given Knowledge Base (KB). Entity linking acts as a bridge between unstructured text and structured knowledge, and benefits various downstream tasks like question answering (Luo et al., 2018) and knowledge extraction (Chen et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, not all entity mentions correspond to a specific entity in the KB that suits the mention context (Ling et al., 2015). Take Table 1 as an example, Peter Blackburn is actually a journalist, and the householder is a common phrase rather than an entity. These two mentions do not refer to any entity in the given KB. The identification of these mentions is referred to as NIL prediction. Therefore, to tackle NIL prediction, the entity linking model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "needs to select mentions whose references are absent in KB, and link them to a special placeholder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{NIL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Dredze et al. (2010) states NIL prediction as one of the key issues in entity linking, which may lead to a decrease in the recall of entity linking systems. Meanwhile, the incorrectly linked entities may provide false information to downstream tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There have been some earlier representation learning based researches that take NIL prediction into consideration (Eshel et al., 2017; Lazic et al., 2015; Peters et al., 2019). They identify NIL mentions by setting a vector similarity threshold or viewing NIL as a special entity. Recently, pretrained language model (PLM) based models (Wu et al., 2020; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Cao et al., 2021) have achieved great success for their great transferability and expandability. However, these models generally assume that there always exists a correct entity for each mention in the knowledge base, which leaves the NIL prediction problem without adequate attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 527, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 527, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 527, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous entity linking datasets have paid insufficient attention to the NIL prediction problem. For example, some of the previous datasets like AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011) view it as an auxiliary task, while others like MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017) does not require NIL prediction at all. There does not yet exist a strong benchmark for the ability on NIL prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. About " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the mentions in NEL do not have their corresponding entity in the candidate entity set, which requires models to identify these mentions rather than linking them to the wrong candidates. In NEL construction, we take ambiguous entities as seeds, and build the dataset by mining mention contexts related to seed entities on the Wikipedia corpus. Then, human annotators are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 178, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 178, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 178, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Corresponding Author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 314, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 314, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 314, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10846" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10846-10860 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 310 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 310 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 310 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Missing Entity
Mention ContextEU rejects German call to boycott British lamb. Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22
Peter Blackburn (Bishop)Peter Blackburn (d.1616) was a Scottish scholar and prelate. He was the second Protestant Bishop of Aberdeen.
Peter Blackburn (MP)Peter Blackburn (1811 – 20 May 1870) was a British Conservative Party politician.
Peter Blackburn (Badminton)Peter Grant Blackburn (born 25 March 1968) is an Australian badminton player who affiliated with the Ballarat Badminton Association.
Non-Entity Phrase
Mention ContextMost Hindus accept that there is a duty to have a family during the house-holder stage of life, as debt to family lineage called Pitra Rin (Father's Debt) and so are unlikely to avoid having children altogether ...
The Householder (Film)The Householder (Hindi title: Gharbar) is a 1963 film by Merchant Ivory Productions, with a screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala ...
The Householder (Novel)The Householder is a 1960 English-language novel by Ruth Prawer Jhab-vala ...
", + "image_path": "1a99c6ce58e4cb52fa62d5e9d169215736e0e7716ce4b9566108caf60b62e844.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 525, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 525, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Example of mentions that should be linked to NIL and their potential candidate entities. Mentions are labeled as red." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "asked to identify whether the mentions correspond to a candidate entity or not, and we further perform entity masking to ensure a fair proportion of NIL data of about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In NIL prediction, we propose to use the widely used bi-encoder and cross-encoder structures as the model backbone, and further integrate type information by adding an entity typing subtask. We combine semantic and type similarity as the final similarity score, and identify NIL mentions by setting a similarity threshold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct a series of experiments on both NEL and previous entity linking datasets. Experimental results show that the models suffer from an accuracy drop when taking NIL prediction into consideration, indicating that the accuracy may be inflated without the NIL prediction task, and NEL could better diagnose the performance of different models. We also conducted ablation studies on how type information and NIL examples affect the models. We discover that the entity typing subtask yields better embedding even when type similarity is not used, and both types of NIL examples in training data would boost the ability of NIL prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 692, + 252, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 692, + 252, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 692, + 252, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions can be concluded as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We categorize the NIL prediction problem into two patterns: Missing Entity and Non-Entity Phrase, where the latter one has not received sufficient attention in previous works." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 364, + 526, + 524 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 364, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 364, + 526, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 364, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose an entity linking dataset NEL focusing on NIL prediction, which covers two patterns of NIL data and could act as a benchmark for diagnosing the ability of NIL prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 444, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 444, + 525, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 444, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We conducted a series of experiments, whose results demonstrate that the accuracy of models may be inflated when not taking NIL prediction into consideration. Meanwhile, both patterns of NIL data in training are essential for triggering the ability of NIL prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 386, + 563 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 386, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 386, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Preliminary" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity mentions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M = \\{m_i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refer to text spans potentially corresponding to entities in a document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D = (w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_n)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is either a plain token or a mention. Each mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " may correspond to an entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i \\in E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the entity set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of knowledge base " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{KB}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Definition 1. Entity linking aims to find an optimal mapping " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Gamma : M \\Rightarrow E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which maps entity mentions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M = \\{m_i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to their corresponding entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E = \\{e_i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i \\in \\mathcal{KB}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 659, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The NIL prediction problem is to determine whether an entity mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is absent from the knowledge base " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{KB}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". When there does not exist a proper entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e \\in \\mathcal{KB}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the given mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10847" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 498, + 298 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 498, + 298 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 498, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 498, + 298 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6e37f93f68c99d676297e6099dddeae0ffc36f5d7c8fa5bda4d4f8b1ea8660ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An illustration of how NEL is constructed. We select ambiguous entities as seeds, taking their alias as potential mentions to discover mention contexts from Wikipedia. The entries are annotated by human annotators, and entity masking is performed on some entries to control the portion of NIL data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the model should link " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to a special NIL entity, indicating that the mention is unlinkable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Definition 2. Entity linking with NIL prediction aims to find an optimal mapping " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Gamma : M \\Rightarrow E \\cup \\{NIL\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where NIL is a special placeholder and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " correspond to NIL only when there is no correct answer in the candidate entity set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As demonstrated in Table 1, there exist two situations in real-world entity linking where NIL prediction should be taken into consideration:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Missing Entity: The mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to certain entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that has not been yet included in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{KB}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", i.e. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m \\Rightarrow e \\notin \\mathcal{KB}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 513, + 291, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For example, in the upper half of Table 1, the mention Peter Blackburn refers to a certain journalist, while entries in English Wikipedia include only people with other occupations, leading to the mention linking to NIL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 629, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 629, + 291, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 629, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Non-Entity Phrase: The mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 629, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 629, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to a common phrase that is not usually viewed as an entity, i.e. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 629, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m \\nRightarrow e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 629, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For example, the mention the householder in the lower half of Table 1 refers to a concept rather than a film or novel." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 198, + 739 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 198, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 198, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Dataset Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There does not yet exist a strong benchmark on NIL prediction. We manually annotated 300 examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with their mentions linking to NIL from the widely used entity linking dataset AIDA1, and discover that about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of these mentions should actually link to an entity. For example, the mention \"EU\" in \"EU rejects German\" should be linked to the European Union rather than NIL (See Appendix D for details). Meanwhile, NIL mentions in AIDA fall mostly in the Missing Entity category. The incorrect and imbalanced data for NIL prediction indicates that the importance of NIL prediction is currently underestimated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we propose an entity linking dataset named NEL, which focuses on the NIL prediction problem. The construction process is demonstrated in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike normal entity linking data, there does not exist annotated references for mentions linking to NIL, and the portion of NIL data in the text corpus is unknown. Hyperlinks in Wikipedia can be viewed as mentions linking to non-NIL entities, from which we can find the aliases of entities. We assume that when an alias does not appear as a hyperlink in a certain context, it may be identified as a mention linking to NIL. In this way, we collect such contexts as the raw data. The raw data is then annotated by humans to ensure correctness, and we further mask out some answer entities in the candidate set to control the percentage of NIL in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 760, + 321, + 767 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 760, + 321, + 767 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 760, + 321, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10848" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 496, + 149 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 496, + 149 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 496, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 496, + 149 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Dataset# DataAnnotatedNIL percentage%Missing Entity%Non-Entity Phrase
AIDA34956✓20.41%73%*10%*
MSNBC654✓0%--
WNED-Wiki240000×0%--
NEL (ours)9924✓33.57%17%83%
", + "image_path": "951bdfcf39f66e5a4110eb4f17884f074f7181408f2d812ac49f7014e5ad40b9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 526, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 526, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 526, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Statistics of the NEL dataset compared with previous entity linking datasets. *The percentage of two NIL patterns in AIDA is calculated from 300 randomly sampled NIL data, and data with errors do not count as any pattern." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 109, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 109, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 109, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 168, + 249 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 168, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 168, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Data Collection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 290, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 290, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 290, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Levin (1977) states that the title of creative works could be a place, a personal name, or a certain abstract concept like the choric embodiment of some collectivity (The Clouds, The Birds) or stock types (The Alchemist, Le Misanthrope), which would naturally lead to the two situations where a mention links to NIL. The absence of the referenced entity from the KB would lead to Missing Entity, while an abstract concept not viewed as an entity would lead to Non-Entity Phrase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To discover NIL mentions of both types, we start by taking entities that share an alias with other entities as seeds. We assume that a mention referring to multiple entities has a higher probability of linking to a Missing Entity outside the KB, and the complex meaning of the mention will lead to Non-Entity Phrase. Thus, the aliases of ambiguous seed entities would be good starting points for mining NIL mentions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity Selection We further filter ambiguous entities to remove low-quality seeds. First, we remove noise instances like template pages, and entities with less than 5 hyperlinks are also removed. Meanwhile, we discarded entities with a probability greater than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of being the linking result, as these entities can generally be considered to be unambiguous and lack difficulty. Finally, 1000 entities are sampled as the seed entity set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 290, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use a typing system based on Wikidata to identify the type of selected entities. We view the instance of relation as the type indicator, and utilize the subclass of relation to build a tree-form type system. The detailed type system can be found in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mention Discovery We build an alias table from the 2021 Wikipedia dump by extracting alias-entity pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(m,e)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from internal hyperlinks. All alias" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " related to entities in the seed entity set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are gathered as the mention set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For each mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m \\in M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we look for its occurrence throughout the Wikipedia corpus (whether it appears as a hyperlink or not) to obtain the entry tuple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(C_{l}, m, C_{r}, E_{m})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C_{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represent contexts left and right to the entity mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the candidate entities set of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For each mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we sampled 5 entries where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " appears as a hyperlink and 5 entries where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " appears in plain text to balance the number of positive and negative examples, and a total of 10,000 entries are collected." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 518, + 401 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 518, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 518, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Human Annotation and Post-processing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform annotation on the above entries with 3 annotators. The annotators are provided with the mention context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(C_l, m, C_r)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and candidate entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Each candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consists of its title, textual description, and Wikipedia URL. The annotators are asked to choose the answer entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a \\in E_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " corresponding to the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a = NIL" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if none of the candidates are correct." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An expert will further investigate entries in which annotators fail to reach a consensus. The expert is a senior annotator with essential knowledge of entity linking, and will confirm the final annotation result after carefully reading through the context and candidate entities. We use the annotation result as the final answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if there is an agreement between 3 annotators, and the entity chosen by the expert otherwise. The annotated tuple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(C_l,m,C_r,E_m,a)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " acts as the final entry of our dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further simulate the situation where new emerging entities do not appear in knowledge bases, we perform entity masking on positive entries. We randomly sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entries where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a \\neq NIL" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and mask the correct entity in the candidate set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In this case, as the correct answer is removed from the candidate list, we have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a = NIL" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", i.e. the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " corresponds to the empty entity NIL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10849" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 100, + 79, + 301, + 285 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 79, + 301, + 285 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 79, + 301, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 79, + 301, + 285 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "187d4d5e1d3f165d1a370301599dc08dc9dc0509daa8512a564f8d0ea2efee08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 524, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 524, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 524, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall structure of PLM-based retrieval models. Candidates which are confusing in the semantic space may be more distinguishable in the type space. Mentions linking to NIL frequently differ from their candidates in their types, so we combine semantic similarity with type similarity for NIL prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 79, + 492, + 264 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 79, + 492, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 79, + 492, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 79, + 492, + 264 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "aad5c3b877f42419d4829cd65c3ad0ec9b9b506b272f43060a25e453af09d4b7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 175, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 175, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 175, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Dataset Statistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 demonstrates the properties of the NEL dataset. NEL includes 6,593 positive examples and 3,331 negative examples, covering 1,000 mentions and 3,840 related entities. Each mention has an average of 3.80 candidate entities. The inter-annotator agreement of NEL is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "94.61\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", indicating that the expert calibrated about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the data. The full dataset is split into train/validation/test sets by the ratio of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%/10\\%/10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NEL contains a fair number of entries, and is human-annotated to ensure correctness. Compared with previous entity linking datasets, NEL has a higher percentage of NIL data, which could better diagnose the ability of different models in NIL prediction. Meanwhile, mentions linking to NIL in AIDA mostly fall in the Missing Entity situation, while NEL focuses more on the Non-Entity Phrase situation, thus complementing the insufficient attention on Non-Entity Phrase in NIL prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 270, + 683 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 270, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 270, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Entity Linking with NIL prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A mention links to NIL when all of its candidate entities fail to match its context. A common paradigm of NIL prediction is to compute the similarity scores between the mention context and candidates, and judge its linking result on the base of similarities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 423, + 380 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 423, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 423, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Scoring Similarities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bi-encoder and cross-encoder are widely adopted scorer structures, as they are well compatible with pretrained language models. Bi-encoder encodes mention contexts and entities into the same dense vector space, while cross-encoder views similarity scoring as a sequence classification task:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 476, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 476, + 525, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 476, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s _ {b i} (c, e) = \\sigma (f (c) \\cdot g (e)) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "e68631a4ed61953defa496c8324d9413103b72ce44e77bd32a80785d6a2d960a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 492, + 524, + 507 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 492, + 524, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 492, + 524, + 507 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s _ {c r o s s} (c, e) = \\sigma (\\mathbf {W h} ([ c, e ]) + \\mathbf {b}) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "f01b9ee15bb32772e5c5d776328b96096ad6bb204447bf6aab792e643922631b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f,g,h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are PLM-based encoders, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are trainable variables, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to the sigmoid function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 558, + 525, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The bi-encoder structure allows precomputing entity embeddings in knowledge bases, which enables efficient retrieval in real-world applications. Compared with bi-encoder, cross-encoder better captures the relation between context and entities with the cross attention mechanism, thus demonstrating higher accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 445, + 675 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 445, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 445, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Integrating Entity Types" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous entity linking models (Gupta et al., 2017; Onoe and Durrett, 2020; Raiman and Raiman, 2018) have proved that entity types do help models better disambiguate between candidate entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The type information can be integrated into bi-encoders and cross-encoders by adding a typing layer. In the bi-encoder structure, the mention types" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10850" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 114, + 511, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 527, + 106 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 527, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 527, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Experimental results on NEL and previous datasets. Non-NAC, NAC, and OAC represent non-NIL accuracy, NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. *Results of GENRE on AIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are taken from the original paper (Cao et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 114, + 511, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 114, + 511, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 114, + 511, + 208 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
NEL (our dataset)AIDA w/ NILAIDA w/o NILMSNBCWNED-WIKI
Non-NACNACOACNon-NACNACOACOACOACOAC
BLINK-bi72.2788.5977.7464.5469.5965.0182.6170.8658.56
CLINK-bi79.2479.2879.2575.9866.3675.0983.2673.2958.99
GENRE*54.0062.8456.96---88.6088.1071.70
BLINK-cross84.0988.8985.7083.0845.1679.5887.4982.0269.48
CLINK-cross86.9789.1987.7184.4258.5382.0388.1689.7072.43
", + "image_path": "9da85eddf9b2092b5ec15350202675588b5999e429f3b92902a41f5b42b32ea0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 271, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 271, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 271, + 241 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 271, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and entity types " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 271, + 241 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 271, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are predicted separately:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 249, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 249, + 290, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 249, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "t _ {c} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {c} f (c) + b _ {c}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "eb3ddea2ac17754c439e07f7e054a71588721db92cefce939a516efb3fb01b6e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 266, + 289, + 280 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 266, + 289, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 266, + 289, + 280 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "t _ {e} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {e} g (e) + b _ {e}\\right) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "c3233ee061e33a16f0b3030fb1beedc7b4e0b60add69580c74137f1a30321c26.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "while they are simultaneously predicted in the cross-encoder structure:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 326, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 326, + 290, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 326, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left[ t _ {c}, t _ {e} \\right] = \\sigma \\left(W f ([ c, e ]) + b\\right) \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "a980589dbea2d8c7e362ee3e08a322448bff7218aee12d241772cdc769cb7150.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the sigmoid function and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{c}, b_{c}, W_{e}, b_{e}, W, b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are trainable parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To tackle the label imbalance between types, we use the focal loss (Lin et al., 2017) on the typing task:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 423, + 294, + 467 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 423, + 294, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 423, + 294, + 467 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {t} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {t}} \\left(y _ {i} \\left(1 - t _ {i}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\log t _ {i} + \\left(1 - y _ {i}\\right) t _ {i} ^ {\\gamma} \\log \\left(1 - t _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "bd85b73f493eb6680e6034b1ac9f2aaf1db2610bd99e74b52a8c53e0f00ce3b9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the total number of types in the type system, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the golden label of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th type and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the predicted label of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th type. In bi-encoder, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the average of loss on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while in cross-encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is directly calculated from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[t_c, t_e]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train the semantic encoder with binary classification loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and combine " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the final loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 590, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 590, + 290, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 590, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {s} + \\mathcal {L} _ {t} \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "06d920e3bb3926180e760365214178dc6dc9bdeb4952384023e2a23a5e6c72d6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 267, + 625 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 267, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 267, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Identifying Mentions Linking to NIL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The type similarity is computed with cosine similarity, and the final score is a weighted sum between type similarity and semantic similarity:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 679, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 679, + 290, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 679, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s _ {t} (c, e) = \\cos \\left(t _ {c}, t _ {e}\\right) \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "3a19a9712798ac31f052ca32afed3bc8c84d2a5a4228baadc82b3849d28b56b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 695, + 290, + 710 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 695, + 290, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 695, + 290, + 710 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s (c, e) = \\lambda s _ {s} (c, e) + (1 - \\lambda) s _ {t} (c, e) \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "6b9b00ed91799b6a4fde7e605d980efda905a3f0c44c2b27c2b303da65db1f44.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 197, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 197, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 197, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 197, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 197, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each entry " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(C_l, m, C_r, E_m, a)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we concatenate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(C_l, m, C_r)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to form the context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In the training step, for each candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e \\in E_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "view " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(c,e)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a positive example if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e = a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , and as a negative example if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a = N I L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e\\neq a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During evaluation, the similarity score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s(c, e)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed between context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and each candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If there exist entities with a score equal to or higher than the nil threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon = 0.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we choose the entity with the highest similarity score as the answer; If all entities fail to reach the threshold, then the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 254, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " links to NIL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 359, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 359, + 525, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 359, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "a = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\arg \\max _ {e} s (c, e), & \\exists e, s (c, e) \\geq \\epsilon \\\\ N I L, & \\forall e, s (c, e) < \\epsilon \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "31c80a9f7c933f11bed420b285a12344d0e9aee41ce6c19c68cf1411325011e0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 390, + 433 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 390, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 390, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct a series of experiments on two types of datasets, which test the different ability of entity linking models: (1) NEL that tests the ability of NIL prediction; (2) previous EL datasets that tests the ability of entity disambiguation. We choose the following models for comparison: BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) that uses the bi-encoder and cross-encoder alone to score candidate entities, CLINK that integrates type information with BLINK, and GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) that generates the linking result with a sequence-to-sequence model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 450, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 450, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 450, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Main Experiment Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We trained and tested the models on NEL, with BERT-large as the encoder base of BLINK and CLINK, and BART-large as the backbone of GENRE, to observe their ability in NIL prediction. We also experimented on previous entity linking datasets to observe the disambiguation ability of different models. The models are trained on the AIDA-YAGO2-train (Hoffart et al., 2011) dataset, and tested on AIDA-YAGO2-testb, MSNBC (Cucerzan, 2007) and WNED-WIKI (Eshel et al., 2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10851" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 101, + 499, + 158 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 525, + 94 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 525, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 525, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Experimental results on the influence of the entity typing task on NEL. OAC indicates the overall accuracy of entity linking. The overall accuracy with typing is achieved without using the type similarity score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 101, + 499, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 101, + 499, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 101, + 499, + 158 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelCtxt Type Acc.Cand Type Acc.OAC w/ TypingOAC w/o Typing
Bi-encoder83.7593.4678.3577.74
Cross-encoder83.9598.0187.4183.67
", + "image_path": "82921ec86baf05b23d1676f01eff4000cafe406a9812bd9484b28a4feaebc810.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 170, + 233, + 329 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 170, + 233, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 170, + 233, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 170, + 233, + 329 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "02e30405e73002b7378d2bc1a22777bb96a4c24cb2ba4a58180d370f3daabd8f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 525, + 362 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 525, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 525, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Ablation study on the influence of NIL training data. The x-axis indicates the percentage of used NIL data or Non-Entity Phrase data in the training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 169, + 363, + 329 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 169, + 363, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 169, + 363, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 169, + 363, + 329 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "263bc244634f9c1b1445bb160d05b1135b3a88b60cd36aa8e8fea317e4080aac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 364, + 170, + 490, + 329 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 170, + 490, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 170, + 490, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 170, + 490, + 329 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "24005887099eaae4c374ea6b9eeba60e1897c3e3afef1fec1f89daf1fc351797.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "187 distinct types are used in experiments on NEL, and considering that the entity type distribution may be different across datasets, we use a type system with only 14 top-level entity types on previous datasets to make CLINK more transferable (See Appendix C for details). We retain the same textual representation format with BLINK (see Appendix A), while using 128 as the length of context sequences and entity descriptions. All models are implemented with PyTorch and optimized with the Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) optimizer with a learning rate of 1e-5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 289, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 289, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 289, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 shows the evaluation results, from which some insights could be discovered:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 290, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Type Information Matters. CLINK with cross-encoder structure achieves the highest accuracy on almost all datasets, and is still comparable with GENRE on AIDA, from which we may assert that taking type information into consideration is helpful even without NIL prediction. Meanwhile, on both structures, the overall accuracy of CLINK outperforms BLINK on all datasets, proving that the entity typing task assists both bi-encoder and cross-encoder distinguish correct entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Encoder Structure. The cross-encoder structure generally performs better than bi-encoder, but we observe that sometimes bi-encoders show de" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 526, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 526, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 526, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cent ability in detecting NIL mentions, especially when type information is not utilized. BLINK-bi achieves the highest NIL accuracy score of 69.59 on AIDA with NIL, and has a score of 88.59 on NEL, which is comparable with the best-performing CLINK-cross. This phenomenon indicates that cross-encoders may be more prone to overfitting, while entity types would alleviate this tendency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NIL Entries. On the AIDA dataset, we observe that the models generally suffer from a drop in accuracy when taking NIL entries into consideration, and the drop is more obvious in bi-encoders. This may indicate that the performance of models is inflated without NIL prediction, and NIL entries may confuse the models in practical application." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 402, + 630 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 402, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 402, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 502, + 649 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 502, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 502, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.1 Influence of the Entity Typing Task" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conducted experiments to observe how the entity typing task influences the model. We trained the model with both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as loss, while setting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " during evaluation to ignore the influence of type similarity scores. Results shown in Table 4 reflects two observations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, candidate type predictions benefit from mention context. We observe that when changing the structure from bi-encoder to cross-encoder, the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10852" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "type prediction accuracy on candidates raises by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where the accuracy on contexts remains unchanged. This is likely because the context helps narrow down the type range, while the context type prediction generally remains unaffected by entity descriptions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, unifying the entity typing task in the training process leads to higher overall accuracy, even when the type similarity score is not taken into consideration in the evaluation, which can be demonstrated by the improved score of OAC w/ Typing compared to OAC w/o Typing on both models. This may indicate that predicting entity types would help the model learn semantic embeddings with higher quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 249, + 298 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 249, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 249, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.2 Influence of NIL Training Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 290, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared with previous datasets like AIDA, NEL contains more NIL mentions of the Non-Entity Phrase type. We trained the models with different numbers of Non-Entity Phrase examples to observe the influence of NIL Training Data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As demonstrated by Figure 3, all models suffer from a great decline in NIL accuracy when no NIL examples are used during the training stage, and bi-encoder is more prone to the accuracy drop. However, by using only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of Non-Entity Phrase examples in training, the NIL accuracy would recover to a decent level. Further adding NIL examples has little impact on cross-encoder models, but bi-encoder models still constantly benefit from additional data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides, ignoring NIL data with the Non-Entity Phrase type will also harm the NIL accuracy and overall accuracy. Both types of NIL training data are necessary to reach to best performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We discover that entity linking models may be unaware of the NIL mentions when there is insufficient training data. A small amount of training data is enough for cross-encoder models to reach a reasonable accuracy, while bi-encoder models constantly benefit from additional training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 160, + 667 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 160, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 160, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PLM-based Models in Entity Linking. Using pretrained language models (PLM) to capture semantic information is widely adopted in recent entity linking models. BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) marks the mention in context with pre-defined special tokens, and takes BERT as the encoder base. Two structures are adopted by BLINK to handle" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "different situations: bi-encoder for fast dense retrieval, and cross-encoder for further disambiguation. MOLEMAN (Fitzgerald et al., 2021) searches for similar mention contexts instead of entities, which better captures the diverse aspects an entity reflects in various contexts. GENRE (Cao et al., 2021) finetunes the sequence-to-sequence model BART, directly generating the unique entity name according to the mention context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Research on NIL Prediction. The NIL prediction problem has been long viewed as an auxiliary task of entity linking. Some entity linking datasets (AIDA (Hoffart et al., 2011), TAC-KBP series (McNamee and Dang, 2009)) take the NIL prediction problem into consideration, while some (ACE and MSNBC) (Ratinov et al., 2011) omit mentions linking to NIL. Some research has already been conducted on the NIL prediction problem. Lazic et al. (2015) and Peters et al. (2019) set a score threshold to filter reasonable candidates, and mentions with no candidate score above the threshold are linked to NIL. Sil and Florian (2016); Kolitsas et al. (2018) views the NIL placeholder as a special entity, and selecting it as the best match indicates that the mention refers to no entities in the given KB. However, recent entity linking models, which use pretrained language models (PLM) as encoder bases, generally take the in-KB setting, which assumes that each mention has a valid golden entity in the KB (Wu et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 525, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity Type Assisted Entity Linking. Entity types can effectively assist entity linking and have been studied in various works. Gupta et al. (2017) jointly encodes mention context, entity description, and Freebase types with bidirectional LSTM to maximize the cosine similarity. DeepType (Raiman and Raiman, 2018) predicts the type probability of each token and gathers relevant tokens to predict the entity types, which would help eliminate candidates with incompatible types. Onoe and Durrett (2020) views entity types as a training objective rather than a feature, predicting fine-grained Wikipedia category tags to select the most relevant entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 697, + 381, + 709 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 697, + 381, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 697, + 381, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on the NIL prediction problem. We observe that mentions linking to NIL can be categorized into two patterns: Missing Entity and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10853" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Non-Entity Phrase, but the latter one has not been paid sufficient attention. We propose an entity linking dataset NEL that focuses on NIL prediction. The dataset is built upon the Wikipedia corpus by choosing ambiguous entities as seeds and collecting relevant mention contexts. NEL is human-annotated to ensure correctness, and entity masking is further performed to control the percentage of NIL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 291, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conducted a series of experiments to examine the performance of PLM-based models on different datasets. Experimental results indicate that the accuracy without considering NIL prediction would be inflated. Meanwhile, sufficient data of both NIL types during training is essential to trigger the ability of NIL prediction. In the future, we may further try to integrate entity types into the pretraining process and explore type transfer between datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 334, + 170, + 348 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 334, + 170, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 334, + 170, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 291, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 291, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 291, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This paper is supported by a grant from the Institute for Guo Qiang, Tsinghua University (2019GQB0003)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 432, + 130, + 444 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 432, + 130, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 432, + 130, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work still exist some limitations. First, we choose an entity typing system on the base of Wiki-data tags, however, the granularity of the typing system remains to be discussed. A system with too many types would introduce noise to long-tail types, while insufficient types would weaken the disambiguation ability of type similarity. Thus, building a type system with adequate granularity remains a challenge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, we combine the entity typing task with PLM-based semantic encoders, which require a fixed type system and further finetuning. Integrating the entity typing task into the pretraining process may enhance the transferability of the model and remove the dependency on a fixed type system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Potential Risks. Our proposed dataset NEL centers on ambiguous entities, whose type distribution may not remain the same with other datasets. A potential risk is that the model trained on NEL may experience under-exposure of other entity types, which would damage their transferability and lead to undesired outputs on other datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 393, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 393, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 393, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we will discuss the ethical considerations of our work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 526, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Licenses and terms. The Wikipedia corpus and Wikidata types are obtained via the Wikimedia dump" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are shared under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. These datasets have been widely used in entity linking research, and we believe that they have been anonymized and desensitized." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 526, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Annotation. We recruited 3 human annotators without a background of expertise in annotation, and 1 expert annotator with adequate knowledge in entity linking for checking. These annotators are employed by commercial data annotation companies. We have paid these recruited annotators with adequate rewards under the agreed working time and price. The annotators are well informed about how these annotated data will be used and released, which has been recorded in the contract." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 526, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intended use. NEL is an entity linking dataset focusing on the NIL prediction problem. Researchers are intended to use NEL for examining the ability of NIL prediction of newly created entity linking models. AIDA, MSNBC, and WNED-WIKI are intended for entity linking research, which is compatible with our work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 530, + 362, + 542 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 530, + 362, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 530, + 362, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 550, + 527, + 740 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 550, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 550, + 526, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 550, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 607, + 527, + 662 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 607, + 527, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 607, + 527, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lihu Chen, Gaël Varoquaux, and Fabian M Suchanek. 2021. A lightweight neural model for biomedical entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12657-12665." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 674, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 674, + 526, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 674, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Silviu Cucerzan. 2007. Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In Proceedings of the 2007 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pages 708-716." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 426, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 426, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 426, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 426, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://dumps.wikimedia.org" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 493, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 493, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 493, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10854" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Dredze, Paul McNamee, Delip Rao, Adam Gerber, and Tim Finin. 2010. Entity disambiguation for knowledge base population. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 277-285." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 204 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yotam Eshel, Noam Cohen, Kira Radinsky, Shaul Markovitch, Ikuya Yamada, and Omer Levy. 2017. Named entity disambiguation for noisy text. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 58-68." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 290, + 305 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 290, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 290, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicholas Fitzgerald, Dan Bikel, Jan Botha, Dan Gillick, Tom Kwiatkowski, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Moleman: Mention-only linking of entities with a mention annotation network. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 278-285." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 290, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nitish Gupta, Sameer Singh, and Dan Roth. 2017. Entity linking via joint encoding of types, descriptions, and context. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2681-2690." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 290, + 459 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 290, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 290, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 782-792." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikolaos Kolitsas, Octavian-Eugen Ganea, and Thomas Hofmann. 2018. End-to-end neural entity linking. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 519-529." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 291, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nevena Lazic, Amarnag Subramanya, Michael Ringgaard, and Fernando Pereira. 2015. Plato: A selective context model for entity resolution. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:503-515." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Harry Levin. 1977. The title as a literary genre. *The Modern language review*, 72(4):xxiii-xxxvi." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 671, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 671, + 290, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 671, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dólar. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980-2988." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 727, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 727, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 727, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiao Ling, Sameer Singh, and Daniel S Weld. 2015. Design challenges for entity linking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:315-328." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 600 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kangqi Luo, Fengli Lin, Xusheng Luo, and Kenny Zhu. 2018. Knowledge base question answering via encoding of complex query graphs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2185-2194." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul McNamee and Hoa Trang Dang. 2009. Overview of the tac 2009 knowledge base population track. In Text analysis conference (TAC), volume 17, pages 111-113." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 234 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yasumasa Onoe and Greg Durrett. 2020. Fine-grained entity typing for domain independent entity linking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8576-8583." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 332 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert Logan, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 43-54." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 525, + 385 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 525, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 525, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 459 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lev Ratinov, Dan Roth, Doug Downey, and Mike Anderson. 2011. Local and global algorithms for disambiguation to wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1375-1384." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 525, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Avirup Sil and Radu Florian. 2016. One for all: Towards language independent named entity linking. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2255-2264." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 525, + 600 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 525, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 525, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6397-6407." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 483, + 638 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 483, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 483, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Details about the NEL Dataset Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 647, + 373, + 660 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 647, + 373, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 647, + 373, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Corpora" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The NEL dataset is built from the 2021-07 English Wikipedia dump under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. We take the hyperlinks in the raw xml dump as entity mentions, and retain at most 128 tokens around the mentions as their context. We take 64 tokens left to the mention and 64 tokens right to the mention by default, and more tokens will be included in one side if the other side does not contain enough" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10855" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 473, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 473, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 473, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 473, + 349 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
HyperparameterNEL & AIDA w/ NIL
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.50.5
ε0.50.5
Epoch4{1, 4}4{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time2 hrs-3.5 hrs-
HyperparameterAIDA w/o NIL, MSNBC & WNED-WIKI
CLINK-biCLINK-cross
ValueRangeValueRange
Learning Rate1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}1e-5{1e-3, 1e-5, 3e-5}
λ0.9[0.0, 1.0]0.9[0.0, 1.0]
ε0-0-
Epoch1{1, 4}1{1, 4}
Batch Size4{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}1{1, 4, 8, 16, 32}
# Parameters670M-335M-
Training Time4 hrs-3 hrs-
", + "image_path": "9a486402c2662152c7a0a4b11b726bcba00bd584ce6c0dc018783c770f912f6c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 357, + 414, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 357, + 414, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 357, + 414, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: The hyperparameters used in the training process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tokens. We then discard tokens from both ends to ensure that the context plus the mention do not exceed the 128 token limit. Media files (image, audio) and Lua commands are discarded during preprocess." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 467, + 166, + 479 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 467, + 166, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 467, + 166, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Data Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 289, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 289, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 289, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entries with the following features are viewed as noise and discarded:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 290, + 689 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 289, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 289, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 289, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The mention context contains the token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 289, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\star \\star}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 289, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is usually a list or formula;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 555, + 289, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 555, + 289, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 555, + 289, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The mention with only 1 candidate entity, which does not pose much challenge;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 591, + 290, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 591, + 290, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 591, + 290, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The mention with more than 20 candidate entities, which is far too challenging;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 627, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 627, + 289, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 627, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The mention appears as a sub-span of a word;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 649, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 649, + 289, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 649, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The mention has a probability of over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 649, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 649, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of linking to a certain candidate entity, in which case we view the mention as unambiguous." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 698, + 244, + 711 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 698, + 244, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 698, + 244, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Textual Representation Format" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 267, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 267, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 267, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Textual representation format for bi-encoder:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 738, + 273, + 753 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 738, + 273, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 738, + 273, + 753 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "C = \\left[ \\mathrm {C L S} \\right] C _ {l} \\left[ m _ {\\text {s t a r t}} \\right] m \\left[ m _ {\\text {e n d}} \\right] C _ {r} \\left[ \\mathrm {S E P} \\right]", + "image_path": "955f1d26a31c84c7b6d18d8051b7546a5bb3059779b02e28b8d9d7e78a4e4d16.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 756, + 245, + 770 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 756, + 245, + 770 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 756, + 245, + 770 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "E = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {C L S} \\end{array} \\right] e _ {t i t l e} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {t i t l e} \\end{array} \\right] e _ {d e s c} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {S E P} \\end{array} \\right]", + "image_path": "0684387b673713edef07f231984115424426242537267b773102d79e6dddf836.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 391, + 525, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 391, + 525, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 391, + 525, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Textual representation format for cross-encoder:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 412, + 505, + 444 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 412, + 505, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 412, + 505, + 444 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} (C, E) = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} \\text {C L S} \\end{array} \\right] C _ {l} \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {\\text {s t a r t}} \\end{array} \\right] m \\left[ \\begin{array}{c} m _ {\\text {e n d}} \\end{array} \\right] C _ {r} \\\\ [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] e _ {t i t l e} [ m _ {t i t l e} ] e _ {d e s c} [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "88bff0fc0e22156b594f8b9a18e5495654e22e7135e2b4debade14bdd9349702.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents mention context and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the textual description of candidate mentions. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[m_{start}],[m_{end}],[m_{title}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are special tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 501, + 425, + 515 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 501, + 425, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 501, + 425, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Experiment Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 522, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 522, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 522, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the BERT-large-uncased model as the encoder base, with parameters initialized from the python transformers library. The models are trained on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU. We obtain the AIDA, MSNBC and WNED-WIKI dataset from the BLINK (Wu et al., 2020) repository https://github.com/facebookresearch/BLINK. We trained our model on the AIDA-train split, and evaluated on all three datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The hyperparameter configurations are as follows. Detailed hyperparameters are shown in Table 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 708, + 402, + 722 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 708, + 402, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 708, + 402, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Typing System" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 442, + 742 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 442, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 442, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.1 Typing System on NEL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use a tree-like typing system with 187 distinct types on NEL. The typing system is build on the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10856" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 508, + 216 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 69, + 361, + 82 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 69, + 361, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 69, + 361, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Examples of type lines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 508, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 508, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 508, + 216 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
EntityTypes
14th Street (Manhattan)Road->RouteOfTransportation->Infrastructure->ArchitecturalStructure->Place
1958 Copa del GeneralíasimoSoccerTournament->Tournament->SportsEvent->SocietalEvent->Event
ATM (song)Song->MusicalWork->Work
Brats (1991 film)Film->Work
Babe RuthBaseballPlayer->Athlete->Person
", + "image_path": "972a6a6981a734ca9e7522b7d248d209f0d507aabf718084d6a57010f03fbdea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "base of Wikidata types. Table 6 shows some examples of type lines in the system. The most 10 frequent types in NEL are: (Work, Organisation, Place, Event, Person, Activity, FictionalCharacter, Award, Species, MeanOfTransportation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 280, + 325 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 280, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 280, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.2 Typing System on Traditional Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We retain 14 top-level types to make CLINK more transferable on different datasets. These types are: (Other, Person, Place, Work, Organization, Event, Fictional Character, Species, Activity, Device, Topical Concept, Ethnic Group, Food, Disease)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 173, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 173, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 173, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Errors in AIDA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7 demonstrates some mentions in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL. 50 errors are detected among the 300 randomly sampled data in AIDA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 149, + 499 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 149, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 149, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 shows some examples predicted by CLINK and BLINK without type information, which reflects how entity types influence the linking result." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the first example, models with the bi-encoder structure incorrectly take the \"Gates of Heaven\" entry (which is in fact a documentary film) as the linking result, while CLINK-cross notices the context word \"album\" may indicate the entity type type, and correctly links the mention to the album. In the second example, the \"Home Before Dark\" mention actually refers to a 1997 movie like other movies in the context, however the corresponding entry is absent in the English Wikipedia. The CLINK-cross model is able to identify that the mention should be labelled as NIL, where the other models mistakenly link it to the \"Home Before Dark\" entry, which is an album rather than a movie. We observe that the entity types do help measure the similarity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 524, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 524, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 524, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "between mentions and entities, which enhances the performance of CLINK." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 227, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 227, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 227, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116547/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10857" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 160, + 511, + 283 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 160, + 511, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 160, + 511, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 160, + 511, + 283 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Mention ContextMentionAssumed Entity
Bosnian premier in Turkey for one day visit . ANKARA 1996-08-27TurkeyTurkey (Country)
EU rejects German call to boycott British lamb . Peter Blackburn BRUS-SELS 1996-08-22EUEuropean Union
U.S. F-14 catches fire while landing in Israel . JERUSALEM 1996-08-25A U.S. fighter plane blew a tyre and ...F-14Grumman F-14 Tomcat
This is the leading story in the Mozambican press on Monday. Reuters has not verified this story and does not vouch for its accuracy.ReutersReuters
", + "image_path": "b471777a34000eb5fdd5d54d23bc44300ff28fdbf4eec1f8f8746e13b7df42de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 493, + 523, + 645 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 290, + 431, + 302 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 290, + 431, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 290, + 431, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Examples data in AIDA that are incorrectly linked to NIL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 493, + 523, + 645 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 493, + 523, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 493, + 523, + 645 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Mention Context:...singer, Michelle Branch, during her visit in Japan to promote her album Hotel Paper, for a magazine interview and photoshoot. After the release of Gates of Heaven the group a short break and performed in New York City ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionGates of HeavenGates of HeavenNILGates of Heaven (album)
Mention Context:...Michael Williams and David Collins founded the company in 1994 focusing on independent features, including Never Met Picasso (1996), Home Before Dark (1997), Six Ways To Sunday (1998), ...
ModelBLINK-biCLINK-biBLINK-crossCLINK-cross
PredictionHome Before DarkHome Before DarkHome Before DarkNIL
", + "image_path": "50eef25dac563053a11230f6bf2b95c2b0159c9360f8d3dc6c3f4380f5381c26.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 525, + 677 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Examples of predicted entity by different models. Entity mentions in context are labelled as red and the correct answer is labelled as bold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10858" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 122, + 177, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 122, + 177, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 122, + 177, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 158, + 177, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 158, + 177, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 158, + 177, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 190, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 190, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 190, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract and Section 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 122, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 122, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 122, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 228, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 228, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 228, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 419, + 228, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 419, + 228, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 419, + 228, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 440, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 440, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 440, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 228, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 228, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 228, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 532, + 228, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 532, + 228, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 532, + 228, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 623, + 132, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 623, + 132, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 623, + 132, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 122, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 122, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 122, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 712, + 142, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 712, + 142, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 712, + 142, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10859" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 237 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 522, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 522, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 522, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 523, + 566 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 523, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 523, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 523, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? The instruction materials contain private information about authors and annotators, which may affect the double-blind review process. We have not yet been permitted to publish it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 349, + 523, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 349, + 523, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 349, + 523, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 412, + 523, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 412, + 523, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 412, + 523, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Section Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 519, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 519, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 519, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? There have not yet established an ethics review board committee in our region." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 513, + 523, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 513, + 523, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 513, + 523, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? These data involve private information about annotators, and we have not yet been permitted to publish it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10860" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_content_list.json b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e1cf859a47a65f7af7747ea8055bd6d54adf52f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2500 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 161, + 90, + 836, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yuming Zhang $^{1}$ , Peng Wang $^{2*}$ , Ming Tan $^{3*}$ , Wei Zhu $^{4*†}$", + "bbox": [ + 262, + 129, + 749, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 148, + 823, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Tomorrow Advancing Life", + "bbox": [ + 384, + 165, + 618, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ Southern University of Science and Technology", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 181, + 710, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{4}$ East China Normal University", + "bbox": [ + 381, + 198, + 640, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, a series of works have looked into further improving the adapter-based tuning by manually designing better adapter architectures. Understandably, these manually designed solutions are sub-optimal. In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework to automatically learn the optimal adapter architectures for better task adaptation of pre-trained models (PTMs). First, we construct a unified search space for adapter architecture designs. In terms of the optimization method on the search space, we propose a simple-yet-effective method, GDNAS, for better architecture optimization. Extensive experiments show that our Learned Adapter framework can outperform the previous parameter-efficient tuning (PETuning) baselines while tuning comparable or fewer parameters. Moreover: (a) the learned adapter architectures are explainable and transferable across tasks. (b) We demonstrate that our architecture search space design is valid.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 587, + 258, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Increasingly large pre-trained models (Han et al., 2021; Devlin et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019b; Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Raffel et al., 2019) built upon the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) have been emerging and achieving the state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on a variety of downstream tasks (Gao et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019; Zhu, 2021b; Zuo et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021b; Zhu et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019). Despite their effectiveness, these large-scale models also bring the curse of prohibitive computation (Zhu et al., 2021c; Zhu, 2021c; Sun et al., 2022) and storage costs during the adaptations to downstream tasks due to the gradient computation of the whole model and the giant size of the fine-tuned checkpoint.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 611, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c381f6c42b781ff366b7435f76d5f8bb03c20bef34feabb7424488a3da5340b3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Overall comparison between our Learned Adapter framework and baselines. The $x$ -axis is the number of tunable parameters, and the $y$ -axis is the average performance on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. The details can be found in Section 5." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 271, + 863, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, parameter efficient tuning (PETuning) has raised much attention in the research field since it can only train a small portion of PTMs and keep the vast majority of parameters frozen, thus alleviating the computation costs during full finetuning. A series of studies (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; BenZaken et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021a; Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) has verified that PETuning can achieve competitive performance compared to conventional finetuning with very few trainable parameters, resulting in a considerable reduction in model adaptation costs. Adapter-based methods (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; He et al., 2021) inject newly-introduced layers after or around the attention or feed-forward modules of the Transformer block, and yield promising results by fine-tuning a small portion of the PTM's parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 579, + 884, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, a branch of recent research has ad", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Equal contribution.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 892, + 272, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Corresponding author: michaelwzhu91@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 904, + 468, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7420", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7420-7437", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 768, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/241adbab414f8f4c0fad70fa5b045d3c058158cc5bb7d59957e1a5899357ea52.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall framework of our Learned Adapter." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 509, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4a205de605cc8d6a9b18ecb0a0736f4db5c39a6ccfffccf26359f528d01c2815.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 83, + 673, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1fae0fd2febc84147f08f0766bd24b1bf8a4061867ecb3c24659d3d15075fbda.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 677, + 86, + 867, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "vanced the understanding of adapter-based tuning more deeply and improved the adapters' architectures to improve parameter efficiency further. Adaptable adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) propose that adapters at different layers should have different activation functions. Thus they fit the rational activation functions to downstream tasks during parameter tuning. AdapterDrop (Rücklé et al., 2020) tries to reduce the number of adapters' parameter number by not inserting adapters on the lower layers. He et al. (2021) bridge connections among different PETuning approaches to form a unified framework and further propose to insert adapters in parallel to the modules of the Transformer block. Jie and Deng (2022) and Sung et al. (2022) propose to add encoding operations between the projection layers of an adapter and achieve better PETuning performances. The above empirical evidence implies that altering the adapters' architecture designs can help to improve the PETuning performances of adapters with even fewer tunable parameters. Predictably, such an optimal architecture is difficult to construct manually and may vary across different PTM backbones and tasks. Therefore, we propose to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 379, + 489, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the Learned Adapter framework to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically. We first construct a unified search space (Figure 2) that considers various design choices of adapters, including the activation functions, encoding operations, and how the adapters are connected to the PTM backbone. In terms of the specific", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "methodology for optimization on the search space, make a simple-yet-effective modification to the optimization method in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), which is better at identifying the proper components for adapters at different intermediate layers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 379, + 884, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct extensive experiments to study the effectiveness of our Learned Adapter framework. The experimental results show that with $0.068\\%$ parameters, we can recover $99.5\\%$ finetuning performances on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmark. Moreover, the searched architecture outperforms the manually designed PETuning baselines while tuning fewer parameters. Figure 1 depicts the overall comparison between our Learned Adapter and the baselines. Furthermore, the learned architectures of adapters are transferable across tasks, which significantly strengthens the usefulness of the searched structures. Further experiments demonstrate that our newly proposed search space for adapters is valid.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 460, + 884, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 715, + 660, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adapter-based tuning. One of the most important research lines of PETuning is adapter-based tuning. Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) inserts adapter modules with bottleneck architecture between every consecutive Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) sublayers. AdapterFusion (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) only inserts sequential adapters after the feed-forward module. Adapter-based tuning methods have comparable results with model tuning when only tuning a fraction of the backbone model's parameter number. Due to their amazing results on PETuning, a", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7421", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "branch of literature has investigated the architecture of adapters in search of further improvements. He et al. (2021) analyze a wide range of PETuning methods and show that they are essentially equivalent. They also propose the general architecture of PETuning. AdapterDrop (Rückle et al., 2020) investigates the efficiency of removing adapters from lower layers. Adaptive adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) investigate the activation functions of adapters and propose to learn the activation functions of adapters via optimizing the parameters of rational functions as a part of the model parameters. Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) uses low-rank parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to compress adapters' tunable parameters. There is also work (Sung et al., 2022; Jie and Deng, 2022) trying to add different encoding operations, like self-attention operations and convolutions between the bottleneck structure of adapters, and achieve better performances.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work complements this branch of literature by investigating: (a) whether and how the adapter architectures affect the PETuning performances, and whether different layers of PTMs need different adapter architectures; (b) whether we can obtain better adapter architectures via neural architecture search.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 411, + 485, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Other PETuning methods Another main research line of PETuning is the prompt-based tuning that inserts some additional soft prompts into the hidden states instead of injecting new neural modules to PTMs. Prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) and P-tuning (Liu et al., 2022) insert a soft prompt to word embeddings only, and can achieve competitive results when applied to supersized PTMs. Prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021) insert prompts to every hidden layer of PTM. IDPG (Wu et al., 2022) uses the prompt generator with parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to generate a soft prompt for every instance. There are also some other popular PETuning methods, such as BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021) which only tunes the bias terms, LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) which optimizes low-rank decomposition matrices of the weights within self-attention layers.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 527, + 485, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Neural architecture search In the early attempts, neural architecture search (NAS) requires massive computations, like thousands of GPU days (Zoph and Le, 2017; Zoph et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Recently, a particular group of one-shot NAS, led", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 839, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "by the seminal work DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) has attracted much attention. DARTS formulates the search space into a super-network that can adjust itself in a continuous space so that the network and architectural parameters can be optimized alternately (bi-level optimization) using gradient descent. A series of literature try to improve the performance and efficiency of DARTS, such as Xie et al. (2019), Chen et al. (2021), Chu et al. (2021), Nayman et al. (2019). SNAS (Xie et al., 2019) reformulate DARTS as a credit assignment task while maintaining the differentiability. Gao et al. (2020) penalize the entropy of the architecture parameters to encourage discretization on the hyper-network. P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021) analyze the issues during the DARTS bi-level optimization, and propose a series of modifications. PC-DARTS (Xu et al., 2021) reduces the memory cost during search by sampling a portion of the channels in supernetworks. FairDARTS (Chu et al., 2021) change the softmax operations in DARTS into sigmoid and introduce a zero-one loss to prune the architectural parameters. XNAS (Nayman et al., 2019) dynamically wipes out inferior architectures and enhances superior ones. NAS is widely applied in both computer vision and natural language processing, especially in knowledge distillation (Zhu, 2021a; Zhang et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 882, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work complements the literature by examining the optimization of DARTS on our search space and propose a new training procedure that does not require re-training after discretization.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 536, + 880, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Search space of Learned Adapter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 614, + 828, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Pilot experiments and motivations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 640, + 821, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this subsection, we conduct a series of experiments on the RTE (Dagan et al., 2005) and MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) datasets to demonstrate the necessity of investigating the architecture of adapters. The baseline model $\\mathcal{M}$ is RoBERTa-large model with an parallel adapter at the feed-forward module (FFN adapter) (He et al., 2021). The backbone model is frozen and we only tune the adapters on downstream tasks. The bottleneck dimension is 32 and the activation function is ReLU. The other experimental settings follow Appendix B. We now consider a series of simple modifications to the baseline model.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 661, + 880, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Modifying the activation function We replace the activation functions of the adapters from ReLU to GeLU, SWISH or Tanh, while keeping the other", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 871, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7422", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e32a20e16684ee3f90363be493b0d02b50b4c18ec716f7beb263d52b0d4a9a35.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelRTEMRPC
M79.1 (0.5)89.3 (0.4)
Mgelu79.3 (0.2)89.5 (0.3)
Mswish79.6 (0.3)89.2 (0.4)
Mtanh79.2 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)
Msa79.5 (0.3)89.6 (0.2)
Mconv79.5 (0.6)89.4 (0.5)
M attenu79.0 (0.4)89.1 (0.3)
Mblock79.6 (0.5)89.4 (0.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 178, + 80, + 428, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Results of the pilot experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 231, + 442, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "settings unchanged. The three modified models are denoted as $\\mathcal{M}_{gelu}$ , $\\mathcal{M}_{swish}$ and $\\mathcal{B}_{tanh}$ , respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 487, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adding encoding operations We add a self-attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) or a convolutional operation of kernel size 3 after the downprojection and before the activation function. The two variants of model $\\mathcal{M}$ are denoted as $\\mathcal{M}_{sa}$ and $\\mathcal{M}_{conv}$ , respectively. Since extra operations introduce more parameters, we reduce the bottleneck dimension of $\\mathcal{M}_{sa}$ and $\\mathcal{M}_{conv}$ to 24 to ensure fair comparison.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 321, + 487, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alternative adapter placements Instead of inserting the adapter around the FFN module of the transformer block, we now consider: (1) $\\mathcal{M}_{\\text {attn }}$ inserts the adapters at the attention modules (attn adapter); (2) $\\mathcal{M}_{\\text {block }}$ inserts the adapters around the entire transformer block (block adapter). Note that the setting of block adapters is theoretically supported by the general framework of PETuning in He et al. (2021) but not considered by the previous work. In this work, we will demonstrate the usefulness of block adapters via experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 467, + 487, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 reports the experimental results of the above models. The evaluation metrics for the RTE and MRPC tasks are introduced by Appendix A.2. We can see that the four simple modifications to the baseline model, $\\mathcal{M}_{gelu}$ , $\\mathcal{M}_{sa}$ , $\\mathcal{M}_{conv}$ and $\\mathcal{M}_{block}$ , can slightly outperform $\\mathcal{M}$ , demonstrating that the adapter architectures are essential for adapter tuning, and it is promising to design better adapter architectures for better adapter tuning performances.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 487, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The pilot experiments raise a vital research question: What are the optimal architectures for adapters? Obviously, such an optimal architecture will be different across tasks and PTM models and even across different intermediate layers of a PTM, making it impossible for manual designs. We are motivated to investigate the problem of optimizing the architectures of adapters via neural architecture", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "search.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 566, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 General architecture of adapters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 112, + 811, + 128 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As depicted in Figure 2, we now construct the search space of the Learned Adapter. The adapter is a bottleneck architecture with bottleneck dimension $r$ , consisting of down-projection layer $\\mathrm{MLP}_d$ , an activation function $g_1$ , an encoder layer $\\mathrm{Enc}$ , another activation function $g_2$ and finally a up-projection layer $\\mathrm{MLP}_u$ . Formally, the hidden states $h_x$ goes through the adapter and becomes", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 133, + 882, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh _ {x} ^ {(A)} = \\operatorname {M L P} _ {u} \\left(g _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {E n c} \\left(g _ {1} \\left(\\operatorname {M L P} _ {d} \\left(h _ {x}\\right)\\right)\\right)\\right)\\right). \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 272, + 882, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following He et al. (2021), the hidden representation $h_x$ will also go through the backbone's certain encoding module BEnc, and the adapted hidden states will become $h_x' = \\mathrm{BEnc}(h_x) + h_x^{(A)}$ . Following (Wu et al., 2022; Mahabadi et al., 2021; Le et al., 2021), we employ the parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (PHM) layer (Le et al., 2021) with parameter $n$ to reduce the parameters of $\\mathrm{MLP}_d$ and $\\mathrm{MLP}_u$ . The PHM layer has a parameter complexity of $\\mathcal{O}(rd / n)$ , reducing the parameters of the projection layers by at most $\\frac{1}{n}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 304, + 884, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Search space", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 658, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now formally introduce the search space of our Learned Adapter framework. The whole search space contains three types of search cells as shown in Figure 2:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Activation Search Cell The Activation Search Cell is designated to choose the proper activation functions $g_{1}$ and $g_{1}$ from several candidates. Similar to So et al. (2019), the collection of candidate activation functions considered is: (a) ReLU (Agarap, 2018); (b) GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016); (c) SWISH (Ramachandran et al., 2017); (d) Tanh (Krizhevsky et al., 2012); (e) NulAct, which means no activation function and not to make changes to the input.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 884, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Encoder Search Cell As is shown in Figure 2, different from (Wang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021b), we construct our encoder cell as a simple DAG with a single edge. Our collection of encoder operations consists of the following four groups: (a) 1-d convolutional layers, with stride 1, same padding, output filters equal to the input's dimension, and kernel size equal to 1, 3, 5, or 7 (denoted as conv_k, $k = 1, 3, 5, 7$ ). (b) Multi-head self-attention (MHA) layers (Vaswani et al., 2017), with head size equal to 2 or 8 (denoted as mha_k,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7423", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$k = 2,8)$ . (c) Skip connection (He et al., 2015), denoted as skip-connect. (d) The null encoding operation that multiplies zero tensors to the input (null).1", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 146 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adapter Placement Search Cell This search cell is designated to decide the placement of the adapter in an intermediate transformer block. We consider three candidate placements shown in Figure 2:² (a) FFN adapter, that is, to insert the adapter in parallel to the feed-forward module; (b) Attn adapter, parallel to the self-attention module; (c) Block adapter inserts the adapter in parallel to the whole transformer block. This placement option is supported by the theoretical analysis of He et al. (2021) but has not been considered by the literature. In the experiments, we will show that including the above three choices for adapter placements are necessary.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 149, + 489, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that the above three search cells are single-edge DAGs. Following Pham et al. (2018); Wang et al. (2020); Zhu et al. (2021b); Zhu (2021a); Zhu et al. (2021d), we consider the macro search space, that is, different adapter architectures are learned for different intermediate layers. Intuitively, the macro search space allows for idiosyncratic architectures for different intermediate layers, leading to easier model adaptation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 374, + 487, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the simple structures of search cell DAGs compared to the general NAS literature, our macro search space can result in $6.38\\mathrm{e} + 90$ combinations of different adapter architectures across different intermediate layers of the PTM backbones. Note that our search space contains the adapter architectures from Sung et al. (2022); Jie and Deng (2022) as special cases.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 519, + 487, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Search Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 282, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Preliminaries on DARTS", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 684, + 356, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Assume there is a pre-defined space of operations denoted by $\\mathcal{O}$ , where each element, $o(\\cdot)$ , denotes a neural network operation, like convolutional operation, self-attention, activation, etc. DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) initialize a hypernetwork in which each block is a search cell, that is, a fully connected directed acyclic graph (DAG) with N nodes. Let $(i,j)$ denote a pair of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 487, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "nodes in the DAG. The core idea of DARTS is to use a weighted sum to include all $|\\mathcal{O}|$ operations in $\\mathcal{O}$ , $f_{i,j}(z_i) = \\sum_{o\\in \\mathcal{O}}a_{i,j}^o\\cdot o(z_i)$ , where $a_{i,j}^{o} = \\frac{\\exp\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}}{\\sum_{o^{\\prime}\\in\\mathcal{O}}\\exp\\alpha_{i,j}^{o^{\\prime}}}$ , $z_{i}$ denotes the output of the $i$ -th node, and $\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}$ is the architectural parameters that represents the weight (or the importance score) of $o(\\cdot)$ in edge $(i,j)$ . The output of a node is the sum of all input flow, i.e., $z_{j} = \\sum_{i < j}f_{i,j}(z_{i})$ . The output of the entire cell is formed by summing the last two nodes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This design makes the entire framework differentiable to both layer weights and architectural parameters $\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}$ so that it is possible to perform architecture search in an end-to-end fashion. After the search process is completed, the discretization procedure extracts the final sub-network by selecting the best operation on each edge and dropping the lower-score operations. And the final sub-network will train on the original train set with randomly initialized parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 267, + 884, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Discussion on the search method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 444, + 808, + 457 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The standard optimization method for the above framework is the bi-level optimization proposed in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a). However, there are recent works arguing that the single-level optimization method could also work for the DARTS framework. As pointed out by Bi et al. (2019) and Bi et al. (2020), bi-level optimization suffers considerable inaccuracy of gradient estimation and the potential instability can increase with the complexity of the search space. And Bi et al. (2020) conduct experiments to demonstrate that one-level optimization performs comparably with bi-level optimization but with better efficiency. Their experiments are conducted mainly on computer vision benchmarks like CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky et al., 2012). In this work, we would like to investigate which optimization method is better under our framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 467, + 882, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that the original DARTS requires one to re-train the learned networks from scratch after the search procedure, which definitely introduce additional computation costs. In this work, we propose to gradually discretize the hyper-network and obtain a sub-network without re-training. We will refer to this method as gradually discretizing neural architecture search (GDNAS). We first train the complete hyper-network $M$ for $K_{1}$ epochs. Then we select a edge $e$ in the search space to discretize (for example, the edge in the encoder cell). Dis", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Choosing this operation means the model decides to discard an operation in the encoder, thus making the encoder a lighter architecture.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 844, + 487, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2Through our initial experiments, we find no improvements to include other standard adapter placement options, like Houlsby et al. (2019); Pfeiffer et al. (2021)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 881, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7424", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cretization simply means selecting the operation $o_{*}^{e}$ with highest architectural parameter, and drop the other operations. Now we have obtain a new reduced hyper-network $M$ . The discretized edge may cause the performance of the hyper-network to drop significantly, so we further finetune the hyper-network $M$ for $K_{2}$ epochs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to the advantage of not to retrain the learned network, GDNAS retains the knowledge in the hyper-network, and obtain the performance gains against the re-trained sub-network. This is analogous to the model pruning literature, where a network pruned from a larger one is usually better than the network trained from scratch (Liang et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 197, + 487, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1: GDNAS", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 124, + 342, + 295, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "Input: A hyper-network $M$ , all edges $\\mathcal{E}$ on hyper-network $M$ ; \nOutput: Set of selected operations $\\{o_e^*\\}_{e\\in \\mathcal{E}}$ \nData: Training set $D_{train}$ , a batch of validation data $B_{val}$ \n1 Train hyper-network $M$ on the training set $D_{train}$ for $K_{1}$ epochs; \n2 for edge $e$ in $\\mathcal{E}$ do \n3 Select the best operation $o_e^* \\gets \\arg \\max_o o_e^*$ ; \n4 Discretize edge $e$ of hyper-network $M$ by only keeping $o_e^*$ ; \n5 Further train the hyper-network $M$ on $D_{train}$ for $K_{2}$ epochs;", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 357, + 485, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 258, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Evaluation datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 314, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the performance of the methods on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmarks. These benchmarks cover multiple tasks of paraphrase detection (MRPC, QQP), sentiment classification (SST-2), natural language inference (MNLI, RTE, QNLI), linguistic acceptability (CoLA).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 487, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the original test sets of the GLUE benchmark are not publicly available, we follow Zhang et al. (2020) and Mahabadi et al. (2021) to construct the train/dev/test splits as follows to ensure a fair comparison: (a) for datasets with fewer than 10k samples (RTE, MRPC, STS-B, CoLA), we divide", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 764, + 487, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the original validation set in half, using one half for validation and the other for testing. (b) for larger datasets, we split 1k samples from the training set as the development set, and use the original development set as the test set. The detailed statistics and evaluation metrics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7 of Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Experiment Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 211, + 714, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We run all the experiments on NVIDIA V100 32GB GPUs. We mainly evaluate our method on the GLUE benchmarks with the RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019c) backbone model. We also evaluate our framework with the DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019) backbones. We use the HugginFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) for implementing all the methods. Unless otherwise specified, GDNAS will adopt the bi-level optimization method of DARTS. For GDNAS' discretization procedure, we set $K_{1} = 5$ and $K_{2} = 0.5$ on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and $K_{1} = 20$ and $K_{2} = 2$ on low-resource datasets. And the batch size is set to 128 for dataset with more than 10k training samples, and 32 otherwise. For Learned Adapter, we set the bottleneck dimension $r$ to 32 and select at most one adapter at each transformer layer. For the PHM layers, we use the PyTorch implementation of Le et al. (2021) and set $n$ to 8. We run each task under 5 different random seeds and report the average performance and standard deviation. More details of the experimental settings are put in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 234, + 882, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 634, + 628, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare our Learned Adapter framework with the current SOTA baseline methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 880, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fine-tune The traditional fine-tuning methods that train all parameters in the PTM backbone.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 690, + 880, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adapter-based tuning For adapter-based tuning methods, we compare with: (1) Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019); (2) Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021); (3) Parallel Adapter proposed by (He et al., 2021) added on the FFN module; (4) LST (Sung et al., 2022). We re-implement Parallel Adapter with PHM projection layers $(n = 8)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 725, + 882, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt-based tuning For prompt-based tuning methods, we compare with (1) Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021), (2) P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021). The number of prompt tokens in these methods is set to 20.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{3}$ Following Devlin et al. (2019) and (Raffel et al., 2019), as a common practice, we do not experiment with the WNLI task (Levesque et al., 2011) due to its adversarial nature with respect to the training set.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7425", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9db34c8b22830f61000a941828abb47a4b048a351abcc63711e8fbfda348da84.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodTunable \nParamsCoLA \n(mcc)SST-2 \n(acc)MRPC \n(acc-f1)QQP \n(acc-f1)STS-B \n(corr)MNLI \n(acc)QNLI \n(acc)RTE \n(acc)Avg
Baselines
RoBERTa-large355M65.395.491.590.391.889.894.580.187.3
Prompt Tuning21K54.6 (2.5)90.9 (0.5)74.8 (1.3)87.4 (0.5)90.1 (0.3)83.4 (0.2)92.4 (0.3)68.7 (1.9)80.3
P-tuning v2985K57.3 (2.1)92.3 (0.3)86.9 (1.2)88.1 (0.4)90.4 (0.1)87.3 (0.2)92.9 (0.4)77.2 (2.1)84.1
BitFit273K59.2 (0.9)94.1 (0.3)88.6 (0.8)88.5 (0.6)91.1 (0.3)87.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.2)78.6 (1.4)85.1
LoRA778K59.7 (1.4)93.6 (0.1)88.9 (0.7)88.3 (0.4)90.9 (0.2)87.9 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.8 (1.3)85.2
UNIPELT1.4M61.5 (1.7)93.6 (0.2)89.2 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)91.0 (0.5)87.5 (0.2)92.9 (0.1)79.1 (0.9)85.4
Adapter1.6M63.1 (1.4)93.8 (0.1)87.5 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)90.9 (0.4)88.5 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.9 (1.3)85.6
LST1.7M63.6 (1.5)93.9 (0.2)89.2 (0.7)88.7 (0.2)91.2 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.0 (0.2)79.2 (0.9)85.9
Parallel Adapters279K63.8 (1.5)94.2 (0.3)89.3 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)91.1 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.1)79.1 (0.5)86.0
Compacter279K63.7 (0.9)94.2 (0.4)89.1 (0.7)88.6 (0.3)90.8 (0.2)88.2 (0.2)92.8 (0.2)78.7 (0.9)85.8
Our proposed methods
Learned Adapter294K64.3 (0.9)94.9 (0.3)89.8 (0.9)89.2 (0.3)91.3 (0.2)88.6 (0.2)93.5 (0.2)80.4 (1.3)86.5
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: The Overall comparison on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. We report mean and standard deviation of performance over 5 random seeds. Bold and Underline indicate the best and the second best results. The metric for each task is explained in Appendix A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 882, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Other PETuning methods We also compare: (1) BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021); (3) LoRA (Hu et al., 2021); (4) UNIPET (Mao et al., 2021) combines different types of PETuning methods in an automatic manner.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 487, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implement Aadpter, BitFit, and LoRA using the OpenDelta library. Other baselines are implemented using their open-sourced codes with their default settings. For a fair comparison, we do not use supplementary training like Wu et al. (2022) to enhance performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 487, + 523 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Results on the GLUE benchmark", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 533, + 421, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 shows the results on GLUE with RoBERTa-large. Our Learned Adapter framework, outperforms the previous PETuning methods and notably preserves $99.4\\%$ performance of the full-model fine-tuning method while only tuning 240K to 300K parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 555, + 487, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We can observe from Table 2 that: (a) Note that our Learned Adapter framework obtains further improvements by automatically designing adapter architectures for different intermediate layers of the PTM. (b) Note that although we add encoding operations in adapters, the total tunable parameters of the Learned Adapter in the macro setting are fewer than Compacter since our framework can automatically drop adapters on certain layers when necessary.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 487, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.5 Further analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 825, + 290, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Explanations of the searched architectures To understand the searched adapter architectures under our Learned Adapter framework, we present the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 846, + 487, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks on Table 9 and 10 in Appendix D, respectively. From the learned adapter architectures, we can observe that: (a) The adapter architecture varies for different layers, showing that different layers require different adapter architectures. (b) On each task, Learned Adapter chooses the null encoding operation on 3-5 intermediate layers, meaning to drop the adapters on these layers. (c) Regarding the adapter placement choices, we find that on each task, all three placement candidates, FFN adapter, Attn adapter, and Block adapter, are selected. This observation demonstrates that introducing block adapters into our search space is necessary. (d) Most adapters select the convolutional operations, and multi-head self-attention operations tend to occur in adapters of deeper layers. (e) around half of the learned adapters choose the NullAct for the second activation function $g_{2}$ . Furthermore, we observe that there are adapters on the deeper transformer layers that requires no activation function but an encoder operation, demonstrating novel design patterns for adapters.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 344, + 884, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Exploring the limit of parameter efficiency To explore the limit of parameter efficiency, we train the Learned Adapter, and Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) with different rank parameters $n \\in \\{1,2,4,8,16,32\\}$ . Note that in the main experiments, we set $n$ equal to 4. With larger $n$ , the parameters of adapters will increase proportionally. In Figure 3, we demonstrate the results of the RTE and SST-2 tasks. We can see that the advantages of our Learned Adapter framework become more prominent with lower tunable parameter budgets. The results demonstrate that our framework can", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://github.com/thunlp/OpenDelta", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 369, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7426", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/23b89e96b27b0250df4bedf992a3b0ee4b206b473e4808da27b2272580bcc5e8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SourceTarget
RTESST-2
RTE80.4 (1.3)94.6 (0.1)
SST-280.3 (1.4)94.9 (0.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 80, + 423, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2b75fd56e5e8eed64e768f3d6b6b25ffa0604a672d7881c74849e363406fc6d9.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Architecture transfer from source datasets to target datasets. The target datasets are in the column names, and the source datasets are in the row names." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Search spaceRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
S80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
S180.1 (1.5)94.6 (0.3)
S279.8 (1.0)94.4 (0.4)
Parallel Adapter79.1 (0.5)94.2 (0.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 214, + 438, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "effectively deliver the most proper architectures under the given parameter budgets and boost the performance of adapter-based tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 367, + 485, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Architectures' Transferability We now evaluate the transferability of the searched structures by the Learned Adapter. The RTE and SST-2 datasets are used as source and target datasets. We search the adapter architectures on the source dataset and train the searched architectures from scratch on the target task, and report the average and standard deviation of scores over 5 random seeds on table 3. We can see from Table 3 that the searched architectures are highly transferable. The transferred architectures can already achieve comparable or better performances than most baseline models (Table 2). The transferability guarantees the reusability of the searched adapter architectures.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 416, + 487, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation studies on the search space We now conduct an ablation study of our search space by reducing our search space $S$ to a singleton step-by-step: (a) reduce the activation cells by only keeping the ReLU activation for $g_{1}$ and the NullAct for $g_{2}$ $(S_{1})$ ; (b) further reduce the encoder cell to only include skip-connect $(S_{2})$ ; (c) further reduce the adapter placement cell to only include FFN adapter, and now the search space only contains Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021). Table 4 reports the search results on different search spaces, showing that that dropping any components of the whole search space results in performance losses. The results demonstrate that each search cell in our search space design is necessary and beneficial.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 644, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Working with other PTM backbones To verify the general applicability of our Learned Adapter", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/492bb68ba5e4f9aca5198790e701bbea0fc10296d4cf6d1ce841b875e018bfa9.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Experimental results for the ablation study of our Learned Adapter search space." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodTunable \nParamsRTE \n(acc)SST-2 \n(acc)
DeBERTa-large backbone
Fine-tuning406M82.1 (1.1)95.7 (0.2)
Adapters1.6M80.7 (1.3)93.8 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters279K81.5 (1.2)93.9 (0.3)
Learned Adapter245K82.0 (0.9)94.5 (0.3)
GPT2-large backbone
Fine-tuning774M79.5 (0.8)95.5 (0.1)
Adapters2.7M78.1 (0.9)93.9 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters462K78.5 (1.2)93.8 (0.1)
Learned Adapter482K79.1 (0.6)94.2 (0.2)
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 80, + 882, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Results on 2 GLUE tasks using DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large models as the backbone. Bold indicates the best PETuning results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 266, + 882, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "framework, we also conduct experiments on two other widely used PTM backbones, DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020), and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are shown in Table 5. Our Learned Adapter successfully outperforms the adapter-based tuning baselines on both pre-trained backbones. This result enhances the reliability of our framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 336, + 882, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now validate our Learned Adapter framework on other pre-trained backbone: DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are presented in Table 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 882, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.6 Discussions on the search method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 542, + 816, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Search efficiency of GDNAS We use the RTE task to demonstrate the search efficiency. Running the RTE task with DARTS takes 1.5h (70.5min for bi-level optimization for 25 epochs and 21.6min for re-training with 25 epochs). Since GDNAS does not require re-training, it requires 1.2h (73.3min for training the hyper-network for $k_{1} + 3*K_{2} = 26$ epochs). Our method consumes around three times the training time of Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021), which is affordable compared to manually designing different architectures and running numerous evaluations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 564, + 882, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation study of search methods We now run Learned Adapter with GDNAS with single-level optimization, the original DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) and ENAS (Cai et al., 2018). The results are shown in Table 6. The results demonstrate that our GDNAS are effective in discovering better adapter architectures. In addition, the results demonstrate that bi-level optimization obtains slightly better results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 882, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance on a NAS benchmark To further", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7427", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4c888ef99f557d4305707afded8b40fe105d7428728493201240466644a83bc3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) RTE" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 220, + 90, + 487, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/35eb84d134582a80016aeb32d56e67c6d2686d7f0f9a4b02c35440ee420dc8b7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) SST-2", + "Figure 3: Performances under different PHM rank $n$ . The $x$ -axis represents the number of tunable parameters, and the $y$ -axis represents the performance. The performance of full-model fine-tuning is in dotted horizontal line." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 502, + 90, + 771, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d155101c51176514482b192c7c39cc832f6357911de28b6b8e8710e05b35e8db.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Search methodRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
GDNAS80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
GDNAS (single-level)80.2 (0.9)94.7 (0.2)
DARTS79.8 (1.2)94.5 (0.5)
ENAS80.3 (1.0)94.3 (0.4)
", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 319, + 470, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Experimental results for the ablation study of the search methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 487, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "validate our GDNAS method, we conduct experiments on the widely studied neural architecture search benchmark dataset, CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky, 2009). The results are reported in Table 8 of Appendix C. Our GDNAS method achieves $2.52\\%$ test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 475, + 487, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 599, + 245, + 614 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework, which automatically optimizes the adapter architectures. First, we design a unified search space for adapters, taking into account the recent works of manual adapter designs. Second, in light of the issues in the DARTS method, we propose a novel GDNAS method that can deliver better adapter architectures and requires no re-training of the learned adapter architectures. We run extensive experiments and analyses on the GLUE benchmark, demonstrating that our Learned Adapter framework can achieve better tuning performances than the baselines while maintaining parameter efficiency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 624, + 487, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 845, + 218, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We showed that our proposed method can greatly improve the performance of parameter efficient tuning on diverse NLU tasks and three different pre", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "trained models (i.e., RoBERTa-large, DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large). However, we acknowledge the following limitations: (a) the more super-sized pretrained models with tens of billions of or more parameters were not studied due to limited computation resources. (b) Other tasks in natural language processing, like the text generation tasks, were also not considered. But our framework can be easily transferred to other backbone architectures and different types of tasks. It would be of interest to investigate if the superiority of our method holds for other backbone models and types of tasks. And we will explore it in future work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 323, + 884, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 544, + 660, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The finding and proposed method aims to improve the adapter based tuning in terms of tuning parameters and performances. The used datasets are widely used in previous work and, to our knowledge, do not have any attached privacy or ethical issues.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 570, + 882, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 693, + 608, + 707 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Abien Fred Agarap. 2018. Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu). ArXiv, abs/1803.08375.", + "Elad Ben-Zaken, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. ArXiv, abs/2106.10199.", + "Kaifeng Bi, Changping Hu, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2019. Stabilizing DARTS with Amended Gradient Estimation on Architectural Parameters. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.11831.", + "Kaifeng Bi, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2020. Gold-nas: Gradual, one-level, differentiable. ArXiv, abs/2007.03331." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 715, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7428", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Han Cai, Tianyao Chen, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Jun Wang. 2018. Efficient architecture search by network transformation. In AAAI.", + "Xin Chen, Lingxi Xie, Jun Wu, and Qi Tian. 2021. Progressive darts: Bridging the optimization gap for nas in the wild. ArXiv, abs/1912.10952.", + "Xiangxiang Chu, Bo Zhang, Ruijun Xu, and Jixiang Li. 2021. Fairnas: Rethinking evaluation fairness of weight sharing neural architecture search. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12219-12228.", + "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. pages 177-190.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005).", + "Xiangxiang Gao, Wei Zhu, Jiasheng Gao, and Congrui Yin. 2023. F-pabee: Flexible-patience-based early exiting for single-label and multi-label text classification tasks. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE.", + "Yuan Gao, Haoping Bai, Zequn Jie, Jiayi Ma, Kui Jia, and Wei Liu. 2020. Mtl-nas: Task-agnostic neural architecture search towards general-purpose multitask learning. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11540-11549.", + "Demi Guo, Alexander Rush, and Yoon Kim. 2021a. Parameter-efficient transfer learning with diff pruning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4884-4896, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhao Guo, Yuan Ni, Keqiang Wang, Wei Zhu, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Global attention decoder for Chinese spelling error correction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP* 2021, pages 1419–1428, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xu Han, Zhengyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Yuxian Gu, Xiao Liu, Yuqi Huo, Jiezhong Qiu, Liang Zhang, Wentao Han, Minlie Huang, Qin Jin, Yanyan Lan, Yang Liu," + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhiyuan Liu, Zhiwu Lu, Xipeng Qiu, Ruihua Song, Jie Tang, Ji rong Wen, Jinhui Yuan, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2021. Pre-trained models: Past, present and future. ArXiv, abs/2106.07139.", + "Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2110.04366.", + "Kaiming He, X. Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778.", + "Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. ArXiv, abs/2006.03654.", + "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv: Learning.", + "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR.", + "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685.", + "Shibo Jie and Zhifang Deng. 2022. Convolutional by-passes are better vision transformer adapters. ArXiv, abs/2207.07039.", + "A. Krizhevsky. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images.", + "Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60:84 - 90.", + "Tuan Le, Marco Bertolini, Frank No'e, and Djork-Arné Clevert. 2021. Parameterized hypercomplex graph neural networks for graph classification. In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks.", + "Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691.", + "Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and L. Morgenstern. 2011. The winograd schema challenge. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.", + "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7429", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Xiepeng Li, Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Zheng Li, Yuan Ni, Peng Gao, Junchi Yan, and Guotong Xie. 2019. Pingan smart health and SJTU at COIN - shared task: utilizing pre-trained language models and commonsense knowledge in machine reading tasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Commonsense Inference in Natural Language Processing, pages 93-98, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tailin Liang, John Glossner, Lei Wang, Shaobo Shi, and Xiaotong Zhang. 2021. Pruning and Quantization for Deep Neural Network Acceleration: A Survey. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2101.09671.", + "Chenxi Liu, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, Wei Hua, Li-Jia Li, Li Fei-Fei, Alan Loddon Yuille, Jonathan Huang, and Kevin P. Murphy. 2018. Progressive neural architecture search. In ECCV.", + "Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. 2019a. Darts: Differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1806.09055.", + "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. P-tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. ArXiv, abs/2110.07602.", + "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Lam Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fin-tuning across scales and tasks. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019c. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692.", + "Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, James Henderson, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. Compacter: Efficient low-rank hypercomplex adapter layers. In NeurIPS.", + "Yuning Mao, Lambert Mathias, Rui Hou, Amjad Almahairi, Hao Ma, Jiawei Han, Wen tau Yih, and Madian Khabsa. 2021. Unipelt: A unified framework for parameter-efficient language model tuning. ArXiv, abs/2110.07577.", + "Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Quentin Delfosse, Kristian Kersting, and Iryna Gurevych. 2022. Adaptable adapters. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Niv Nayman, Asaf Noy, T. Ridnik, Itamar Friedman, Rong Jin, and Lihi Zelnik-Manor. 2019. Xnas: Neural architecture search with expert advice. *ArXiv*, abs/1906.08031." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rückle, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. AdapterFusion: Non-destructive task composition for transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 487-503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hieu Pham, Melody Y. Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V. Le, and Jeff Dean. 2018. Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing. In ICML.", + "Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining.", + "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683.", + "Prajit Ramachandran, Barret Zoph, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Swish: a self-gated activation function. arXiv: Neural and Evolutionary Computing.", + "Esteban Real, Alok Aggarwal, Yanping Huang, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Andreas Rückle, Gregor Geigle, Max Glockner, Tilman Beck, Jonas Pfeiffer, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Adapterdrop: On the efficiency of adapters in transformers. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "David R. So, Chen Liang, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. The evolved transformer. ArXiv, abs/1901.11117.", + "Haixia Sun, Jin Xiao, Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Sheng Zhang, Xiaowei Xu, Li Hou, Jiao Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2020. Medical knowledge graph to enhance fraud, waste, and abuse detection on claim data: Model development and performance evaluation. JMIR Med Inform, 8(7):e17653.", + "Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2409-2421, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7430", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yi-Lin Sung, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Lst: Ladder side-tuning for parameter and memory efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2206.06522.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762.", + "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In BlackboxNLP@EMNLP.", + "Yujing Wang, Yaming Yang, Yiren Chen, Jing Bai, Ce Zhang, Guinan Su, Xiaoyu Kou, Yunhai Tong, Mao Yang, and Lidong Zhou. 2020. Textnas: A neural architecture search space tailored for text representation. In AAAI.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhuofeng Wu, Sinong Wang, Jiatao Gu, Rui Hou, Yuxiao Dong, V. G. Vinod Vydiswaran, and Hao Ma. 2022. Idpg: An instance-dependent prompt generation method. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2018. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926.", + "Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2019. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926.", + "Yuhui Xu, Lingxi Xie, Wenrui Dai, Xiaopeng Zhang, Xin Chen, Guo-Jun Qi, Hongkai Xiong, and Qi Tian. 2021. Partially-connected neural architecture search for reduced computational redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43:2953-2970.", + "Arber Zela, Thomas Elsken, Tonmoy Saikia, Yassine Marrakchi, Thomas Brox, and Frank Hutter. 2019. Understanding and robustifying differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1909.09656.", + "Tianyi Zhang, Felix Wu, Arzoo Katiyar, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Revisiting few-sample bert fine-tuning. *ArXiv*, abs/2006.05987." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhen Zhang, Wei Zhu, Jinfan Zhang, Peng Wang, Rize Jin, and Tae-Sun Chung. 2022. PCEE-BERT: Accelerating BERT inference via patient and confident early exiting. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 327-338, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Junchi Yan, Peng Gao, and Guotong Xie. 2021. Automatic student network search for knowledge distillation. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2446-2453. IEEE.", + "Hongpeng Zhou, Minghao Yang, Jun Wang, and Wei Pan. 2019. Bayesnas: A bayesian approach for neural architecture search. *ArXiv*, abs/1905.04919.", + "Wei Zhu. 2021a. Autonlu: Architecture search for sentence and cross-sentence attention modeling with redesigned search space. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 10, pages 155-168. Springer.", + "Wei Zhu. 2021b. AutoRC: Improving BERT based relation classification models via architecture search. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: Student Research Workshop, pages 33-43, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wei Zhu. 2021c. LeeBERT: Learned early exit for BERT with cross-level optimization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2968-2980, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Ling Chai, Yunxiao Fan, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, and Xiaoling Wang. 2021a. paht_nlp @ MEDIQA 2021: Multi-grained query focused multi-answer summarization. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 96-102, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Xiaoling Wang, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Discovering better model architectures for medical query understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Industry Papers, pages 230-237, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wei Zhu, Peng Wang, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2023. Acf: Aligned contrastive fin-tuning for language and vision tasks. In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7431", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/884366fe05a52356957b5ae33b6becf9d6d14aabc1ac95c657f2281bc658a569.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CategoryDatasetsltrainlldevlltestl|y|TypeLabels
Single-sentenceSST-26634910008722sentimentpositive, negative
CoLA85515215222linguistic acceptabilityacceptable, not acceptable
Sentence-pairMNLI3917021000196473NLIentailment, neutral, contradiction
MRPC266810004082paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
QNLI103743100054632NLIentailment, not entailment
QQP3628461000404302paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
RTE149010002772NLIentailment, not entailment
STS-B5750750751-semantic similarity-
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: The dataset statistics of the GLUE benchmark tasks evaluated in this work. For MNLI task, the number of samples in the test set is summed by matched and mismatched samples. $|\\mathcal{V}|$ is the number of classes for a classification task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 216, + 882, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guo Tong Xie. 2021c. Gaml-bert: Improving bert early exiting by gradient aligned mutual learning. In EMNLP.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 285, + 487, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2021d. Autotrans: Automating transformer design via reinforced architecture search. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing*, pages 169–182, Cham. Springer International Publishing.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 337, + 489, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wei Zhu, Xiaofeng Zhou, Keqiang Wang, Xun Luo, Xiepeng Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2019. PANLP at MEDIQA 2019: Pre-trained language models, transfer learning and knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task, pages 380-388, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 416, + 489, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Barret Zoph and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. *ArXiv*, abs/1611.01578.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 520, + 489, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 573, + 489, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 651, + 489, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yuhui Zuo, Wei Zhu, and Guoyong GUET Cai. 2022. Continually detection, rapidly react: Unseen rumors detection based on continual prompt-tuning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3029-3041, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 728, + 489, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Datasets and evaluation metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 838, + 426, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Dataset splits", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 865, + 270, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The detailed statistics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Evaluation metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 285, + 709, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For MNLI, we report the average of the accuracy scores on the matched and mis-matched test set. For MRPC and QQP, we report acc-f1, which is the average of accuracy and F1 scores. For STS-B, we report corr, which denotes the average of the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. For CoLA, we report mcc, which is the Matthews correlation. For all other tasks, we report accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 306, + 884, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Appendix for experimental settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 449, + 850, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Details of experiments We run our methods and baseline method on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) following the previous works. All datasets are downloaded via the HuggingFace Datasets library. Since the test split of these tasks are invisible to the researchers, we randomly split off 1k samples from the training set as validation set for large datasets(QQP, QNLI, SST2, MNLI), and use the remaining as the training set, and use the original validation set as the test set. For other datasets, we randomly split the original validation set in half as the validation set and the test set, and use the original train set as our train set. The same dataset is split differently with different random seeds.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 475, + 882, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each experiment setting, we repeat the experiment with 5 seeds, and report the average score and standard deviation. In all experiments, the maximum sequence length is 128 for the tasks. We mainly use the RoBERTa-large model (355M parameters) as the backbone model, but we also adopt the GPT2-large and DeBERTa-large the backbone models for ablation studies. We freeze the pretrained parameters in all experiments except full-model finetuning. We use AdamW as the optimizer with a linear learning rate decay schedule and $6\\%$ of the training steps for warm-up.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 701, + 884, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5https://huggingface.co/docs/datasets/index", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 798, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7432", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train the hyper-network on the train set $D_{train}$ following (Liu et al., 2019a). For training epochs, we set $K_{1} = 5$ and $K_{2} = 1$ on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and $K_{1} = 20$ and $K_{2} = 5$ on low-resource datasets. We will run the search procedure once for each task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After the hyper-network is fully discretized, instead of retraining from scratch, we further train the remained network for $K_{2}$ epochs, and we evaluate the model on the dev set and save the model checkpoint every $I_{eval}$ steps. The best checkpoint on the dev set is used to run predictions on the test set. We report the average scores on the test set and standard deviations across 5 random seeds.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 198, + 489, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Other hyper-parameters We do pilot experiments on SST-2 using learning rates in $\\{2\\mathrm{e} - 5,5\\mathrm{e} - 5,$ $1\\mathrm{e} - 4,2\\mathrm{e} - 4\\}$ , and find that 1e-4 performs the best. For fine-tuning, we try learning rates in $\\{1\\mathrm{e} - 5,2\\mathrm{e} -$ $5,5\\mathrm{e} - 5\\}$ and find that 2e-5 performs the best. The number of training epochs for the baselines is set as $K = 5$ on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and $K = 20$ on smaller datasets. We apply these hyper-parameters to all baselines, and no further hyperparameter-tuning are conducted. Therefore, the comparison is fair for all methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 328, + 489, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Experimental results on the CIFAR-10 task", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 519, + 485, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further validate that our GDNAS method can obtain better search performances than the DNAS baselines, we now conduct experiments in the general NAS setting. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we conduct neural architecture search on the CIFAR-10 dataset (Krizhevsky, 2009) based on the search space of DARTS. We keep all the search settings identical to DARTS. We first train the hyper-network with frozen architectural weights for 50 epochs. After selecting the operation on an edge, we tune the hyper-net for 8 epochs to let the modified hyper-network to adjust. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we run the search and architecture selection phase with four random seeds and report both the best and average test errors of the obtained architectures. The results are reported in Table 8, which compares GDNAS with the DNAS baseline methods. Our GDNAS method achieves $2.52\\%$ test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days. The results of GDNAS is comparable to other method (like P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)) with more complex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "procedures.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 600, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Learned architectures on the GLUE tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 111, + 858, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present the learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks. The learned adapter architecture are presented in Table 9, 10, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 154, + 882, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7433", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cd4019f243d4def77089d109ed9e07597fb5d2dd9abf2a52437e6cec266d2727.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ArchitectureTest Error (%)Params (M)Search Cost (GPU days)Search Framework
NASNet-A (Zoph et al., 2017)2.653.32000RL
AmoebaNet (Real et al., 2018)3.343.23150evolution
ENAS (Pham et al., 2018)2.894.60.5RL
DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a)3.023.30.4DNAS
SNAS (Xie et al., 2018)2.852.81.5DNAS
BayesNAS (Zhou et al., 2019)2.813.40.2DNAS
P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)2.503.40.3DNAS
R-DARTS (Zela et al., 2019)2.95-1.6DNAS
GDNAS (ours)2.523.30.6DNAS
", + "bbox": [ + 196, + 137, + 805, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9dc15f2edb474ad06adaa63b11678f46bf5e2c8e2f3c200a2e6874170c609b95.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: The search results on the CIFAR-10 task." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1FFNelunull_ACTmha_8
2----
3----
4FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
5Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_2
6FFNgelu_newleaky_reluconv_3
7FFNnull_ACTtanhmha_2
8----
9Attnelureluconv_3
10----
11Attngelu_newreluconv_1
12Attngelu_newreluconv_3
13Blockreluleaky_reluconv_1
14Attnswishreluconv_3
15FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
16Blockleaky_relureluconv_5
17FFNleaky_relureluconv_1
18Attnleaky_relunull_ACTskip_connect
19FFNrelureluconv_3
20FFNgelu_newnull_ACTconv_3
21----
22Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
23Attntanhnull_ACTconv_3
24FFNtanhnull_ACTmha_2
", + "bbox": [ + 215, + 460, + 788, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: The learned adapter architectures on the RTE task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only \"-\", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 814, + 884, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7434", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a8accd4dace60c26b827834b437e188704cbb9bcadbc55db360e044a80156f9b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTconv_5
2----
3FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
4Attntanhnull_ACTmha_2
5Attnelunull_ACTskip_connect
6FFNgelu_newreluconv_5
7Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_3
8----
9Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_5
10FFNrelureluconv_3
11Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
12----
13Blocktanhnull_ACTskip_connect
14----
15FFNswishswishconv_1
16Blockrelureluconv_1
17FFNreluswishconv_3
18FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
19Attngelu_newrelumha_8
20FFNswishrelumha_8
21Attnswishnull_ACTconv_3
22Attnelunull_ACTconv_3
23Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTmha_8
24Attnelunull_ACTmha_2
", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 298, + 786, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: The learned adapter architectures on the SST-2 task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only \"-\", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 884, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7435", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 231, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 168, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 231, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 231, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 213, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 347, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 363, + 248, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 390, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 407, + 248, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 498, + 248, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 524, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 574, + 248, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 599, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 633, + 248, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 658, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 740, + 248, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 494, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 6", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 206, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 6.2", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 846, + 236, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 877, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7436", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 6.2, Appendix C", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 6.4, Section 6.5, Section 6.6", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 6.2" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 878, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7437", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_model.json b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1eeb8969ffb57a6629bf53c7e0fda5370b7275b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3349 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.091, + 0.837, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.263, + 0.13, + 0.751, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuming Zhang\\(^{1}\\), Peng Wang\\(^{2*}\\), Ming Tan\\(^{3*}\\), Wei Zhu\\(^{4*†}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.149, + 0.824, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.385, + 0.166, + 0.619, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Tomorrow Advancing Life" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.312, + 0.182, + 0.712, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\) Southern University of Science and Technology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.382, + 0.199, + 0.642, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{4}\\) East China Normal University" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, a series of works have looked into further improving the adapter-based tuning by manually designing better adapter architectures. Understandably, these manually designed solutions are sub-optimal. In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework to automatically learn the optimal adapter architectures for better task adaptation of pre-trained models (PTMs). First, we construct a unified search space for adapter architecture designs. In terms of the optimization method on the search space, we propose a simple-yet-effective method, GDNAS, for better architecture optimization. Extensive experiments show that our Learned Adapter framework can outperform the previous parameter-efficient tuning (PETuning) baselines while tuning comparable or fewer parameters. Moreover: (a) the learned adapter architectures are explainable and transferable across tasks. (b) We demonstrate that our architecture search space design is valid." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.588, + 0.26, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.612, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Increasingly large pre-trained models (Han et al., 2021; Devlin et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019b; Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Raffel et al., 2019) built upon the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) have been emerging and achieving the state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on a variety of downstream tasks (Gao et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019; Zhu, 2021b; Zuo et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021b; Zhu et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019). Despite their effectiveness, these large-scale models also bring the curse of prohibitive computation (Zhu et al., 2021c; Zhu, 2021c; Sun et al., 2022) and storage costs during the adaptations to downstream tasks due to the gradient computation of the whole model and the giant size of the fine-tuned checkpoint." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.272, + 0.865, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.465, + 0.883, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Overall comparison between our Learned Adapter framework and baselines. The \\( x \\)-axis is the number of tunable parameters, and the \\( y \\)-axis is the average performance on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. The details can be found in Section 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.58, + 0.885, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, parameter efficient tuning (PETuning) has raised much attention in the research field since it can only train a small portion of PTMs and keep the vast majority of parameters frozen, thus alleviating the computation costs during full finetuning. A series of studies (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; BenZaken et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021a; Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) has verified that PETuning can achieve competitive performance compared to conventional finetuning with very few trainable parameters, resulting in a considerable reduction in model adaptation costs. Adapter-based methods (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; He et al., 2021) inject newly-introduced layers after or around the attention or feed-forward modules of the Transformer block, and yield promising results by fine-tuning a small portion of the PTM's parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, a branch of recent research has ad" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.893, + 0.273, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal contribution." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.905, + 0.469, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Corresponding author: michaelwzhu91@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.893, + 0.469, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7420" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.769, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7420-7437" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.51, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.084, + 0.675, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.678, + 0.087, + 0.868, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.303, + 0.34, + 0.694, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of our Learned Adapter." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.38, + 0.49, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "vanced the understanding of adapter-based tuning more deeply and improved the adapters' architectures to improve parameter efficiency further. Adaptable adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) propose that adapters at different layers should have different activation functions. Thus they fit the rational activation functions to downstream tasks during parameter tuning. AdapterDrop (Rücklé et al., 2020) tries to reduce the number of adapters' parameter number by not inserting adapters on the lower layers. He et al. (2021) bridge connections among different PETuning approaches to form a unified framework and further propose to insert adapters in parallel to the modules of the Transformer block. Jie and Deng (2022) and Sung et al. (2022) propose to add encoding operations between the projection layers of an adapter and achieve better PETuning performances. The above empirical evidence implies that altering the adapters' architecture designs can help to improve the PETuning performances of adapters with even fewer tunable parameters. Predictably, such an optimal architecture is difficult to construct manually and may vary across different PTM backbones and tasks. Therefore, we propose to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the Learned Adapter framework to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically. We first construct a unified search space (Figure 2) that considers various design choices of adapters, including the activation functions, encoding operations, and how the adapters are connected to the PTM backbone. In terms of the specific" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.38, + 0.885, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "methodology for optimization on the search space, make a simple-yet-effective modification to the optimization method in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), which is better at identifying the proper components for adapters at different intermediate layers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.461, + 0.885, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct extensive experiments to study the effectiveness of our Learned Adapter framework. The experimental results show that with \\(0.068\\%\\) parameters, we can recover \\(99.5\\%\\) finetuning performances on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmark. Moreover, the searched architecture outperforms the manually designed PETuning baselines while tuning fewer parameters. Figure 1 depicts the overall comparison between our Learned Adapter and the baselines. Furthermore, the learned architectures of adapters are transferable across tasks, which significantly strengthens the usefulness of the searched structures. Further experiments demonstrate that our newly proposed search space for adapters is valid." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.716, + 0.662, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adapter-based tuning. One of the most important research lines of PETuning is adapter-based tuning. Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) inserts adapter modules with bottleneck architecture between every consecutive Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) sublayers. AdapterFusion (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) only inserts sequential adapters after the feed-forward module. Adapter-based tuning methods have comparable results with model tuning when only tuning a fraction of the backbone model's parameter number. Due to their amazing results on PETuning, a" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7421" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "branch of literature has investigated the architecture of adapters in search of further improvements. He et al. (2021) analyze a wide range of PETuning methods and show that they are essentially equivalent. They also propose the general architecture of PETuning. AdapterDrop (Rückle et al., 2020) investigates the efficiency of removing adapters from lower layers. Adaptive adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) investigate the activation functions of adapters and propose to learn the activation functions of adapters via optimizing the parameters of rational functions as a part of the model parameters. Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) uses low-rank parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to compress adapters' tunable parameters. There is also work (Sung et al., 2022; Jie and Deng, 2022) trying to add different encoding operations, like self-attention operations and convolutions between the bottleneck structure of adapters, and achieve better performances." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.412, + 0.486, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work complements this branch of literature by investigating: (a) whether and how the adapter architectures affect the PETuning performances, and whether different layers of PTMs need different adapter architectures; (b) whether we can obtain better adapter architectures via neural architecture search." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.529, + 0.486, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Other PETuning methods Another main research line of PETuning is the prompt-based tuning that inserts some additional soft prompts into the hidden states instead of injecting new neural modules to PTMs. Prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) and P-tuning (Liu et al., 2022) insert a soft prompt to word embeddings only, and can achieve competitive results when applied to supersized PTMs. Prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021) insert prompts to every hidden layer of PTM. IDPG (Wu et al., 2022) uses the prompt generator with parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to generate a soft prompt for every instance. There are also some other popular PETuning methods, such as BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021) which only tunes the bias terms, LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) which optimizes low-rank decomposition matrices of the weights within self-attention layers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neural architecture search In the early attempts, neural architecture search (NAS) requires massive computations, like thousands of GPU days (Zoph and Le, 2017; Zoph et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Recently, a particular group of one-shot NAS, led" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "by the seminal work DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) has attracted much attention. DARTS formulates the search space into a super-network that can adjust itself in a continuous space so that the network and architectural parameters can be optimized alternately (bi-level optimization) using gradient descent. A series of literature try to improve the performance and efficiency of DARTS, such as Xie et al. (2019), Chen et al. (2021), Chu et al. (2021), Nayman et al. (2019). SNAS (Xie et al., 2019) reformulate DARTS as a credit assignment task while maintaining the differentiability. Gao et al. (2020) penalize the entropy of the architecture parameters to encourage discretization on the hyper-network. P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021) analyze the issues during the DARTS bi-level optimization, and propose a series of modifications. PC-DARTS (Xu et al., 2021) reduces the memory cost during search by sampling a portion of the channels in supernetworks. FairDARTS (Chu et al., 2021) change the softmax operations in DARTS into sigmoid and introduce a zero-one loss to prune the architectural parameters. XNAS (Nayman et al., 2019) dynamically wipes out inferior architectures and enhances superior ones. NAS is widely applied in both computer vision and natural language processing, especially in knowledge distillation (Zhu, 2021a; Zhang et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.537, + 0.882, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work complements the literature by examining the optimization of DARTS on our search space and propose a new training procedure that does not require re-training after discretization." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.615, + 0.83, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Search space of Learned Adapter" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.641, + 0.822, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Pilot experiments and motivations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.662, + 0.882, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this subsection, we conduct a series of experiments on the RTE (Dagan et al., 2005) and MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) datasets to demonstrate the necessity of investigating the architecture of adapters. The baseline model \\(\\mathcal{M}\\) is RoBERTa-large model with an parallel adapter at the feed-forward module (FFN adapter) (He et al., 2021). The backbone model is frozen and we only tune the adapters on downstream tasks. The bottleneck dimension is 32 and the activation function is ReLU. The other experimental settings follow Appendix B. We now consider a series of simple modifications to the baseline model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.872, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Modifying the activation function We replace the activation functions of the adapters from ReLU to GeLU, SWISH or Tanh, while keeping the other" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7422" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.179, + 0.081, + 0.43, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelRTEMRPC
M79.1 (0.5)89.3 (0.4)
Mgelu79.3 (0.2)89.5 (0.3)
Mswish79.6 (0.3)89.2 (0.4)
Mtanh79.2 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)
Msa79.5 (0.3)89.6 (0.2)
Mconv79.5 (0.6)89.4 (0.5)
M attenu79.0 (0.4)89.1 (0.3)
Mblock79.6 (0.5)89.4 (0.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.232, + 0.443, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Results of the pilot experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.273, + 0.489, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "settings unchanged. The three modified models are denoted as \\(\\mathcal{M}_{gelu}\\), \\(\\mathcal{M}_{swish}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{B}_{tanh}\\), respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.322, + 0.489, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adding encoding operations We add a self-attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) or a convolutional operation of kernel size 3 after the downprojection and before the activation function. The two variants of model \\(\\mathcal{M}\\) are denoted as \\(\\mathcal{M}_{sa}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{M}_{conv}\\), respectively. Since extra operations introduce more parameters, we reduce the bottleneck dimension of \\(\\mathcal{M}_{sa}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{M}_{conv}\\) to 24 to ensure fair comparison." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.468, + 0.489, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alternative adapter placements Instead of inserting the adapter around the FFN module of the transformer block, we now consider: (1) \\(\\mathcal{M}_{\\text {attn }}\\) inserts the adapters at the attention modules (attn adapter); (2) \\(\\mathcal{M}_{\\text {block }}\\) inserts the adapters around the entire transformer block (block adapter). Note that the setting of block adapters is theoretically supported by the general framework of PETuning in He et al. (2021) but not considered by the previous work. In this work, we will demonstrate the usefulness of block adapters via experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.489, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 reports the experimental results of the above models. The evaluation metrics for the RTE and MRPC tasks are introduced by Appendix A.2. We can see that the four simple modifications to the baseline model, \\(\\mathcal{M}_{gelu}\\), \\(\\mathcal{M}_{sa}\\), \\(\\mathcal{M}_{conv}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{M}_{block}\\), can slightly outperform \\(\\mathcal{M}\\), demonstrating that the adapter architectures are essential for adapter tuning, and it is promising to design better adapter architectures for better adapter tuning performances." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The pilot experiments raise a vital research question: What are the optimal architectures for adapters? Obviously, such an optimal architecture will be different across tasks and PTM models and even across different intermediate layers of a PTM, making it impossible for manual designs. We are motivated to investigate the problem of optimizing the architectures of adapters via neural architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.567, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "search." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.113, + 0.813, + 0.129 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 General architecture of adapters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.134, + 0.884, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As depicted in Figure 2, we now construct the search space of the Learned Adapter. The adapter is a bottleneck architecture with bottleneck dimension \\( r \\), consisting of down-projection layer \\( \\mathrm{MLP}_d \\), an activation function \\( g_1 \\), an encoder layer \\( \\mathrm{Enc} \\), another activation function \\( g_2 \\) and finally a up-projection layer \\( \\mathrm{MLP}_u \\). Formally, the hidden states \\( h_x \\) goes through the adapter and becomes" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.273, + 0.884, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh _ {x} ^ {(A)} = \\operatorname {M L P} _ {u} \\left(g _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {E n c} \\left(g _ {1} \\left(\\operatorname {M L P} _ {d} \\left(h _ {x}\\right)\\right)\\right)\\right)\\right). \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.305, + 0.885, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following He et al. (2021), the hidden representation \\( h_x \\) will also go through the backbone's certain encoding module BEnc, and the adapted hidden states will become \\( h_x' = \\mathrm{BEnc}(h_x) + h_x^{(A)} \\). Following (Wu et al., 2022; Mahabadi et al., 2021; Le et al., 2021), we employ the parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (PHM) layer (Le et al., 2021) with parameter \\( n \\) to reduce the parameters of \\( \\mathrm{MLP}_d \\) and \\( \\mathrm{MLP}_u \\). The PHM layer has a parameter complexity of \\( \\mathcal{O}(rd / n) \\), reducing the parameters of the projection layers by at most \\( \\frac{1}{n} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.496, + 0.659, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Search space" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.884, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now formally introduce the search space of our Learned Adapter framework. The whole search space contains three types of search cells as shown in Figure 2:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.885, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Activation Search Cell The Activation Search Cell is designated to choose the proper activation functions \\(g_{1}\\) and \\(g_{1}\\) from several candidates. Similar to So et al. (2019), the collection of candidate activation functions considered is: (a) ReLU (Agarap, 2018); (b) GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016); (c) SWISH (Ramachandran et al., 2017); (d) Tanh (Krizhevsky et al., 2012); (e) NulAct, which means no activation function and not to make changes to the input." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Encoder Search Cell As is shown in Figure 2, different from (Wang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021b), we construct our encoder cell as a simple DAG with a single edge. Our collection of encoder operations consists of the following four groups: (a) 1-d convolutional layers, with stride 1, same padding, output filters equal to the input's dimension, and kernel size equal to 1, 3, 5, or 7 (denoted as conv_k, \\( k = 1, 3, 5, 7 \\)). (b) Multi-head self-attention (MHA) layers (Vaswani et al., 2017), with head size equal to 2 or 8 (denoted as mha_k," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7423" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(k = 2,8)\\). (c) Skip connection (He et al., 2015), denoted as skip-connect. (d) The null encoding operation that multiplies zero tensors to the input (null).1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.15, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adapter Placement Search Cell This search cell is designated to decide the placement of the adapter in an intermediate transformer block. We consider three candidate placements shown in Figure 2:² (a) FFN adapter, that is, to insert the adapter in parallel to the feed-forward module; (b) Attn adapter, parallel to the self-attention module; (c) Block adapter inserts the adapter in parallel to the whole transformer block. This placement option is supported by the theoretical analysis of He et al. (2021) but has not been considered by the literature. In the experiments, we will show that including the above three choices for adapter placements are necessary." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.375, + 0.489, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that the above three search cells are single-edge DAGs. Following Pham et al. (2018); Wang et al. (2020); Zhu et al. (2021b); Zhu (2021a); Zhu et al. (2021d), we consider the macro search space, that is, different adapter architectures are learned for different intermediate layers. Intuitively, the macro search space allows for idiosyncratic architectures for different intermediate layers, leading to easier model adaptation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.52, + 0.489, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the simple structures of search cell DAGs compared to the general NAS literature, our macro search space can result in \\(6.38\\mathrm{e} + 90\\) combinations of different adapter architectures across different intermediate layers of the PTM backbones. Note that our search space contains the adapter architectures from Sung et al. (2022); Jie and Deng (2022) as special cases." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.661, + 0.283, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Search Method" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.686, + 0.357, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Preliminaries on DARTS" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.707, + 0.489, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Assume there is a pre-defined space of operations denoted by \\(\\mathcal{O}\\), where each element, \\(o(\\cdot)\\), denotes a neural network operation, like convolutional operation, self-attention, activation, etc. DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) initialize a hypernetwork in which each block is a search cell, that is, a fully connected directed acyclic graph (DAG) with N nodes. Let \\((i,j)\\) denote a pair of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "nodes in the DAG. The core idea of DARTS is to use a weighted sum to include all \\(|\\mathcal{O}|\\) operations in \\(\\mathcal{O}\\), \\(f_{i,j}(z_i) = \\sum_{o\\in \\mathcal{O}}a_{i,j}^o\\cdot o(z_i)\\), where \\(a_{i,j}^{o} = \\frac{\\exp\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}}{\\sum_{o^{\\prime}\\in\\mathcal{O}}\\exp\\alpha_{i,j}^{o^{\\prime}}}\\), \\(z_{i}\\) denotes the output of the \\(i\\)-th node, and \\(\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}\\) is the architectural parameters that represents the weight (or the importance score) of \\(o(\\cdot)\\) in edge \\((i,j)\\). The output of a node is the sum of all input flow, i.e., \\(z_{j} = \\sum_{i < j}f_{i,j}(z_{i})\\). The output of the entire cell is formed by summing the last two nodes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.268, + 0.885, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This design makes the entire framework differentiable to both layer weights and architectural parameters \\(\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}\\) so that it is possible to perform architecture search in an end-to-end fashion. After the search process is completed, the discretization procedure extracts the final sub-network by selecting the best operation on each edge and dropping the lower-score operations. And the final sub-network will train on the original train set with randomly initialized parameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.445, + 0.81, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Discussion on the search method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.468, + 0.884, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The standard optimization method for the above framework is the bi-level optimization proposed in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a). However, there are recent works arguing that the single-level optimization method could also work for the DARTS framework. As pointed out by Bi et al. (2019) and Bi et al. (2020), bi-level optimization suffers considerable inaccuracy of gradient estimation and the potential instability can increase with the complexity of the search space. And Bi et al. (2020) conduct experiments to demonstrate that one-level optimization performs comparably with bi-level optimization but with better efficiency. Their experiments are conducted mainly on computer vision benchmarks like CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky et al., 2012). In this work, we would like to investigate which optimization method is better under our framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that the original DARTS requires one to re-train the learned networks from scratch after the search procedure, which definitely introduce additional computation costs. In this work, we propose to gradually discretize the hyper-network and obtain a sub-network without re-training. We will refer to this method as gradually discretizing neural architecture search (GDNAS). We first train the complete hyper-network \\(M\\) for \\(K_{1}\\) epochs. Then we select a edge \\(e\\) in the search space to discretize (for example, the edge in the encoder cell). Dis" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.845, + 0.488, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Choosing this operation means the model decides to discard an operation in the encoder, thus making the encoder a lighter architecture." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.882, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Through our initial experiments, we find no improvements to include other standard adapter placement options, like Houlsby et al. (2019); Pfeiffer et al. (2021)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.845, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7424" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cretization simply means selecting the operation \\( o_{*}^{e} \\) with highest architectural parameter, and drop the other operations. Now we have obtain a new reduced hyper-network \\( M \\). The discretized edge may cause the performance of the hyper-network to drop significantly, so we further finetune the hyper-network \\( M \\) for \\( K_{2} \\) epochs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.198, + 0.489, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to the advantage of not to retrain the learned network, GDNAS retains the knowledge in the hyper-network, and obtain the performance gains against the re-trained sub-network. This is analogous to the model pruning literature, where a network pruned from a larger one is usually better than the network trained from scratch (Liang et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.343, + 0.296, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: GDNAS" + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.359, + 0.486, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: A hyper-network \\(M\\), all edges \\(\\mathcal{E}\\) on hyper-network \\(M\\); \nOutput: Set of selected operations \\(\\{o_e^*\\}_{e\\in \\mathcal{E}}\\) \nData: Training set \\(D_{train}\\), a batch of validation data \\(B_{val}\\) \n1 Train hyper-network \\(M\\) on the training set \\(D_{train}\\) for \\(K_{1}\\) epochs; \n2 for edge \\(e\\) in \\(\\mathcal{E}\\) do \n3 Select the best operation \\(o_e^* \\gets \\arg \\max_o o_e^*\\); \n4 Discretize edge \\(e\\) of hyper-network \\(M\\) by only keeping \\(o_e^*\\); \n5 Further train the hyper-network \\(M\\) on \\(D_{train}\\) for \\(K_{2}\\) epochs;" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.623, + 0.26, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.648, + 0.315, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Evaluation datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.669, + 0.488, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the performance of the methods on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmarks. These benchmarks cover multiple tasks of paraphrase detection (MRPC, QQP), sentiment classification (SST-2), natural language inference (MNLI, RTE, QNLI), linguistic acceptability (CoLA)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.765, + 0.489, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the original test sets of the GLUE benchmark are not publicly available, we follow Zhang et al. (2020) and Mahabadi et al. (2021) to construct the train/dev/test splits as follows to ensure a fair comparison: (a) for datasets with fewer than 10k samples (RTE, MRPC, STS-B, CoLA), we divide" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.869, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)Following Devlin et al. (2019) and (Raffel et al., 2019), as a common practice, we do not experiment with the WNLI task (Levesque et al., 2011) due to its adversarial nature with respect to the training set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the original validation set in half, using one half for validation and the other for testing. (b) for larger datasets, we split 1k samples from the training set as the development set, and use the original development set as the test set. The detailed statistics and evaluation metrics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7 of Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.212, + 0.715, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Experiment Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.235, + 0.884, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We run all the experiments on NVIDIA V100 32GB GPUs. We mainly evaluate our method on the GLUE benchmarks with the RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019c) backbone model. We also evaluate our framework with the DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019) backbones. We use the HugginFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) for implementing all the methods. Unless otherwise specified, GDNAS will adopt the bi-level optimization method of DARTS. For GDNAS' discretization procedure, we set \\( K_{1} = 5 \\) and \\( K_{2} = 0.5 \\) on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and \\( K_{1} = 20 \\) and \\( K_{2} = 2 \\) on low-resource datasets. And the batch size is set to 128 for dataset with more than 10k training samples, and 32 otherwise. For Learned Adapter, we set the bottleneck dimension \\( r \\) to 32 and select at most one adapter at each transformer layer. For the PHM layers, we use the PyTorch implementation of Le et al. (2021) and set \\( n \\) to 8. We run each task under 5 different random seeds and report the average performance and standard deviation. More details of the experimental settings are put in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.636, + 0.63, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare our Learned Adapter framework with the current SOTA baseline methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.692, + 0.882, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fine-tune The traditional fine-tuning methods that train all parameters in the PTM backbone." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.726, + 0.883, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adapter-based tuning For adapter-based tuning methods, we compare with: (1) Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019); (2) Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021); (3) Parallel Adapter proposed by (He et al., 2021) added on the FFN module; (4) LST (Sung et al., 2022). We re-implement Parallel Adapter with PHM projection layers \\((n = 8)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt-based tuning For prompt-based tuning methods, we compare with (1) Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021), (2) P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021). The number of prompt tokens in these methods is set to 20." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7425" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.081, + 0.885, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodTunable \nParamsCoLA \n(mcc)SST-2 \n(acc)MRPC \n(acc-f1)QQP \n(acc-f1)STS-B \n(corr)MNLI \n(acc)QNLI \n(acc)RTE \n(acc)Avg
Baselines
RoBERTa-large355M65.395.491.590.391.889.894.580.187.3
Prompt Tuning21K54.6 (2.5)90.9 (0.5)74.8 (1.3)87.4 (0.5)90.1 (0.3)83.4 (0.2)92.4 (0.3)68.7 (1.9)80.3
P-tuning v2985K57.3 (2.1)92.3 (0.3)86.9 (1.2)88.1 (0.4)90.4 (0.1)87.3 (0.2)92.9 (0.4)77.2 (2.1)84.1
BitFit273K59.2 (0.9)94.1 (0.3)88.6 (0.8)88.5 (0.6)91.1 (0.3)87.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.2)78.6 (1.4)85.1
LoRA778K59.7 (1.4)93.6 (0.1)88.9 (0.7)88.3 (0.4)90.9 (0.2)87.9 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.8 (1.3)85.2
UNIPELT1.4M61.5 (1.7)93.6 (0.2)89.2 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)91.0 (0.5)87.5 (0.2)92.9 (0.1)79.1 (0.9)85.4
Adapter1.6M63.1 (1.4)93.8 (0.1)87.5 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)90.9 (0.4)88.5 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.9 (1.3)85.6
LST1.7M63.6 (1.5)93.9 (0.2)89.2 (0.7)88.7 (0.2)91.2 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.0 (0.2)79.2 (0.9)85.9
Parallel Adapters279K63.8 (1.5)94.2 (0.3)89.3 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)91.1 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.1)79.1 (0.5)86.0
Compacter279K63.7 (0.9)94.2 (0.4)89.1 (0.7)88.6 (0.3)90.8 (0.2)88.2 (0.2)92.8 (0.2)78.7 (0.9)85.8
Our proposed methods
Learned Adapter294K64.3 (0.9)94.9 (0.3)89.8 (0.9)89.2 (0.3)91.3 (0.2)88.6 (0.2)93.5 (0.2)80.4 (1.3)86.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.277, + 0.884, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: The Overall comparison on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. We report mean and standard deviation of performance over 5 random seeds. Bold and Underline indicate the best and the second best results. The metric for each task is explained in Appendix A.2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.346, + 0.489, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Other PETuning methods We also compare: (1) BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021); (3) LoRA (Hu et al., 2021); (4) UNIPET (Mao et al., 2021) combines different types of PETuning methods in an automatic manner." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.427, + 0.489, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implement Aadpter, BitFit, and LoRA using the OpenDelta library. Other baselines are implemented using their open-sourced codes with their default settings. For a fair comparison, we do not use supplementary training like Wu et al. (2022) to enhance performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.535, + 0.423, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Results on the GLUE benchmark" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.556, + 0.489, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 shows the results on GLUE with RoBERTa-large. Our Learned Adapter framework, outperforms the previous PETuning methods and notably preserves \\(99.4\\%\\) performance of the full-model fine-tuning method while only tuning 240K to 300K parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.654, + 0.489, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We can observe from Table 2 that: (a) Note that our Learned Adapter framework obtains further improvements by automatically designing adapter architectures for different intermediate layers of the PTM. (b) Note that although we add encoding operations in adapters, the total tunable parameters of the Learned Adapter in the macro setting are fewer than Compacter since our framework can automatically drop adapters on certain layers when necessary." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.826, + 0.292, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.5 Further analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.847, + 0.489, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Explanations of the searched architectures To understand the searched adapter architectures under our Learned Adapter framework, we present the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.346, + 0.885, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks on Table 9 and 10 in Appendix D, respectively. From the learned adapter architectures, we can observe that: (a) The adapter architecture varies for different layers, showing that different layers require different adapter architectures. (b) On each task, Learned Adapter chooses the null encoding operation on 3-5 intermediate layers, meaning to drop the adapters on these layers. (c) Regarding the adapter placement choices, we find that on each task, all three placement candidates, FFN adapter, Attn adapter, and Block adapter, are selected. This observation demonstrates that introducing block adapters into our search space is necessary. (d) Most adapters select the convolutional operations, and multi-head self-attention operations tend to occur in adapters of deeper layers. (e) around half of the learned adapters choose the NullAct for the second activation function \\( g_{2} \\). Furthermore, we observe that there are adapters on the deeper transformer layers that requires no activation function but an encoder operation, demonstrating novel design patterns for adapters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Exploring the limit of parameter efficiency To explore the limit of parameter efficiency, we train the Learned Adapter, and Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) with different rank parameters \\( n \\in \\{1,2,4,8,16,32\\} \\). Note that in the main experiments, we set \\( n \\) equal to 4. With larger \\( n \\), the parameters of adapters will increase proportionally. In Figure 3, we demonstrate the results of the RTE and SST-2 tasks. We can see that the advantages of our Learned Adapter framework become more prominent with lower tunable parameter budgets. The results demonstrate that our framework can" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.371, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://github.com/thunlp/OpenDelta" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7426" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.082, + 0.425, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SourceTarget
RTESST-2
RTE80.4 (1.3)94.6 (0.1)
SST-280.3 (1.4)94.9 (0.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.157, + 0.486, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Architecture transfer from source datasets to target datasets. The target datasets are in the column names, and the source datasets are in the row names." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.215, + 0.44, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Search spaceRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
S80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
S180.1 (1.5)94.6 (0.3)
S279.8 (1.0)94.4 (0.4)
Parallel Adapter79.1 (0.5)94.2 (0.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.31, + 0.487, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Experimental results for the ablation study of our Learned Adapter search space." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.368, + 0.486, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "effectively deliver the most proper architectures under the given parameter budgets and boost the performance of adapter-based tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.417, + 0.489, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Architectures' Transferability We now evaluate the transferability of the searched structures by the Learned Adapter. The RTE and SST-2 datasets are used as source and target datasets. We search the adapter architectures on the source dataset and train the searched architectures from scratch on the target task, and report the average and standard deviation of scores over 5 random seeds on table 3. We can see from Table 3 that the searched architectures are highly transferable. The transferred architectures can already achieve comparable or better performances than most baseline models (Table 2). The transferability guarantees the reusability of the searched adapter architectures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.645, + 0.489, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation studies on the search space We now conduct an ablation study of our search space by reducing our search space \\(S\\) to a singleton step-by-step: (a) reduce the activation cells by only keeping the ReLU activation for \\(g_{1}\\) and the NullAct for \\(g_{2}\\) \\((S_{1})\\); (b) further reduce the encoder cell to only include skip-connect \\((S_{2})\\); (c) further reduce the adapter placement cell to only include FFN adapter, and now the search space only contains Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021). Table 4 reports the search results on different search spaces, showing that that dropping any components of the whole search space results in performance losses. The results demonstrate that each search cell in our search space design is necessary and beneficial." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Working with other PTM backbones To verify the general applicability of our Learned Adapter" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.082, + 0.883, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodTunable \nParamsRTE \n(acc)SST-2 \n(acc)
DeBERTa-large backbone
Fine-tuning406M82.1 (1.1)95.7 (0.2)
Adapters1.6M80.7 (1.3)93.8 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters279K81.5 (1.2)93.9 (0.3)
Learned Adapter245K82.0 (0.9)94.5 (0.3)
GPT2-large backbone
Fine-tuning774M79.5 (0.8)95.5 (0.1)
Adapters2.7M78.1 (0.9)93.9 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters462K78.5 (1.2)93.8 (0.1)
Learned Adapter482K79.1 (0.6)94.2 (0.2)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.267, + 0.884, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Results on 2 GLUE tasks using DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large models as the backbone. Bold indicates the best PETuning results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.337, + 0.884, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "framework, we also conduct experiments on two other widely used PTM backbones, DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020), and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are shown in Table 5. Our Learned Adapter successfully outperforms the adapter-based tuning baselines on both pre-trained backbones. This result enhances the reliability of our framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.466, + 0.884, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now validate our Learned Adapter framework on other pre-trained backbone: DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are presented in Table 5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.543, + 0.818, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.6 Discussions on the search method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.565, + 0.883, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Search efficiency of GDNAS We use the RTE task to demonstrate the search efficiency. Running the RTE task with DARTS takes 1.5h (70.5min for bi-level optimization for 25 epochs and 21.6min for re-training with 25 epochs). Since GDNAS does not require re-training, it requires 1.2h (73.3min for training the hyper-network for \\( k_{1} + 3*K_{2} = 26 \\) epochs). Our method consumes around three times the training time of Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021), which is affordable compared to manually designing different architectures and running numerous evaluations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.884, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation study of search methods We now run Learned Adapter with GDNAS with single-level optimization, the original DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) and ENAS (Cai et al., 2018). The results are shown in Table 6. The results demonstrate that our GDNAS are effective in discovering better adapter architectures. In addition, the results demonstrate that bi-level optimization obtains slightly better results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance on a NAS benchmark To further" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7427" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.091, + 0.488, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.331, + 0.242, + 0.384, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) RTE" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.504, + 0.091, + 0.772, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.61, + 0.242, + 0.673, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) SST-2" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.27, + 0.882, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Performances under different PHM rank \\( n \\). The \\( x \\)-axis represents the number of tunable parameters, and the \\( y \\)-axis represents the performance. The performance of full-model fine-tuning is in dotted horizontal line." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.32, + 0.472, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Search methodRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
GDNAS80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
GDNAS (single-level)80.2 (0.9)94.7 (0.2)
DARTS79.8 (1.2)94.5 (0.5)
ENAS80.3 (1.0)94.3 (0.4)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.422, + 0.489, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Experimental results for the ablation study of the search methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.476, + 0.489, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "validate our GDNAS method, we conduct experiments on the widely studied neural architecture search benchmark dataset, CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky, 2009). The results are reported in Table 8 of Appendix C. Our GDNAS method achieves \\(2.52\\%\\) test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.6, + 0.247, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.625, + 0.489, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework, which automatically optimizes the adapter architectures. First, we design a unified search space for adapters, taking into account the recent works of manual adapter designs. Second, in light of the issues in the DARTS method, we propose a novel GDNAS method that can deliver better adapter architectures and requires no re-training of the learned adapter architectures. We run extensive experiments and analyses on the GLUE benchmark, demonstrating that our Learned Adapter framework can achieve better tuning performances than the baselines while maintaining parameter efficiency." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.846, + 0.22, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We showed that our proposed method can greatly improve the performance of parameter efficient tuning on diverse NLU tasks and three different pre" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.324, + 0.885, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "trained models (i.e., RoBERTa-large, DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large). However, we acknowledge the following limitations: (a) the more super-sized pretrained models with tens of billions of or more parameters were not studied due to limited computation resources. (b) Other tasks in natural language processing, like the text generation tasks, were also not considered. But our framework can be easily transferred to other backbone architectures and different types of tasks. It would be of interest to investigate if the superiority of our method holds for other backbone models and types of tasks. And we will explore it in future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.545, + 0.662, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.571, + 0.884, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The finding and proposed method aims to improve the adapter based tuning in terms of tuning parameters and performances. The used datasets are widely used in previous work and, to our knowledge, do not have any attached privacy or ethical issues." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.694, + 0.61, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.716, + 0.882, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abien Fred Agarap. 2018. Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu). ArXiv, abs/1803.08375." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.753, + 0.884, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elad Ben-Zaken, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. ArXiv, abs/2106.10199." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.816, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaifeng Bi, Changping Hu, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2019. Stabilizing DARTS with Amended Gradient Estimation on Architectural Parameters. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.11831." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.878, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaifeng Bi, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2020. Gold-nas: Gradual, one-level, differentiable. ArXiv, abs/2007.03331." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.716, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7428" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Han Cai, Tianyao Chen, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Jun Wang. 2018. Efficient architecture search by network transformation. In AAAI." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.136, + 0.487, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Chen, Lingxi Xie, Jun Wu, and Qi Tian. 2021. Progressive darts: Bridging the optimization gap for nas in the wild. ArXiv, abs/1912.10952." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.185, + 0.486, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiangxiang Chu, Bo Zhang, Ruijun Xu, and Jixiang Li. 2021. Fairnas: Rethinking evaluation fairness of weight sharing neural architecture search. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12219-12228." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.261, + 0.487, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. pages 177-190." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.31, + 0.487, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.437, + 0.487, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.5, + 0.487, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiangxiang Gao, Wei Zhu, Jiasheng Gao, and Congrui Yin. 2023. F-pabee: Flexible-patience-based early exiting for single-label and multi-label text classification tasks. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.588, + 0.487, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuan Gao, Haoping Bai, Zequn Jie, Jiayi Ma, Kui Jia, and Wei Liu. 2020. Mtl-nas: Task-agnostic neural architecture search towards general-purpose multitask learning. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11540-11549." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.676, + 0.487, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Demi Guo, Alexander Rush, and Yoon Kim. 2021a. Parameter-efficient transfer learning with diff pruning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4884-4896, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.791, + 0.487, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhao Guo, Yuan Ni, Keqiang Wang, Wei Zhu, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Global attention decoder for Chinese spelling error correction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP* 2021, pages 1419–1428, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xu Han, Zhengyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Yuxian Gu, Xiao Liu, Yuqi Huo, Jiezhong Qiu, Liang Zhang, Wentao Han, Minlie Huang, Qin Jin, Yanyan Lan, Yang Liu," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyuan Liu, Zhiwu Lu, Xipeng Qiu, Ruihua Song, Jie Tang, Ji rong Wen, Jinhui Yuan, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2021. Pre-trained models: Past, present and future. ArXiv, abs/2106.07139." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.15, + 0.882, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2110.04366." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.215, + 0.882, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaiming He, X. Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.278, + 0.882, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. ArXiv, abs/2006.03654." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.342, + 0.881, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv: Learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.38, + 0.882, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.47, + 0.882, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.547, + 0.882, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shibo Jie and Zhifang Deng. 2022. Convolutional by-passes are better vision transformer adapters. ArXiv, abs/2207.07039." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.598, + 0.882, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A. Krizhevsky. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.636, + 0.882, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60:84 - 90." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.7, + 0.882, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tuan Le, Marco Bertolini, Frank No'e, and Djork-Arné Clevert. 2021. Parameterized hypercomplex graph neural networks for graph classification. In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.764, + 0.882, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.815, + 0.882, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and L. Morgenstern. 2011. The winograd schema challenge. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7429" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiepeng Li, Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Zheng Li, Yuan Ni, Peng Gao, Junchi Yan, and Guotong Xie. 2019. Pingan smart health and SJTU at COIN - shared task: utilizing pre-trained language models and commonsense knowledge in machine reading tasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Commonsense Inference in Natural Language Processing, pages 93-98, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.214, + 0.488, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tailin Liang, John Glossner, Lei Wang, Shaobo Shi, and Xiaotong Zhang. 2021. Pruning and Quantization for Deep Neural Network Acceleration: A Survey. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2101.09671." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.276, + 0.488, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenxi Liu, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, Wei Hua, Li-Jia Li, Li Fei-Fei, Alan Loddon Yuille, Jonathan Huang, and Kevin P. Murphy. 2018. Progressive neural architecture search. In ECCV." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.339, + 0.488, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. 2019a. Darts: Differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1806.09055." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.388, + 0.488, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. P-tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. ArXiv, abs/2110.07602." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.451, + 0.488, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Lam Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fin-tuning across scales and tasks. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.526, + 0.488, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.602, + 0.488, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019c. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.678, + 0.488, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, James Henderson, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. Compacter: Efficient low-rank hypercomplex adapter layers. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.727, + 0.488, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuning Mao, Lambert Mathias, Rui Hou, Amjad Almahairi, Hao Ma, Jiawei Han, Wen tau Yih, and Madian Khabsa. 2021. Unipelt: A unified framework for parameter-efficient language model tuning. ArXiv, abs/2110.07577." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.803, + 0.488, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Quentin Delfosse, Kristian Kersting, and Iryna Gurevych. 2022. Adaptable adapters. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Niv Nayman, Asaf Noy, T. Ridnik, Itamar Friedman, Rong Jin, and Lihi Zelnik-Manor. 2019. Xnas: Neural architecture search with expert advice. *ArXiv*, abs/1906.08031." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.16, + 0.883, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rückle, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. AdapterFusion: Non-destructive task composition for transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 487-503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.274, + 0.883, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hieu Pham, Melody Y. Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V. Le, and Jeff Dean. 2018. Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing. In ICML." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.322, + 0.883, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.37, + 0.883, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.432, + 0.883, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.506, + 0.883, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prajit Ramachandran, Barret Zoph, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Swish: a self-gated activation function. arXiv: Neural and Evolutionary Computing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.555, + 0.883, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Esteban Real, Alok Aggarwal, Yanping Huang, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.616, + 0.883, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andreas Rückle, Gregor Geigle, Max Glockner, Tilman Beck, Jonas Pfeiffer, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Adapterdrop: On the efficiency of adapters in transformers. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.69, + 0.883, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David R. So, Chen Liang, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. The evolved transformer. ArXiv, abs/1901.11117." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.726, + 0.883, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haixia Sun, Jin Xiao, Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Sheng Zhang, Xiaowei Xu, Li Hou, Jiao Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2020. Medical knowledge graph to enhance fraud, waste, and abuse detection on claim data: Model development and performance evaluation. JMIR Med Inform, 8(7):e17653." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.813, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2409-2421, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7430" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi-Lin Sung, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Lst: Ladder side-tuning for parameter and memory efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2206.06522." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.14, + 0.486, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.206, + 0.487, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In BlackboxNLP@EMNLP." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.285, + 0.487, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yujing Wang, Yaming Yang, Yiren Chen, Jing Bai, Ce Zhang, Guinan Su, Xiaoyu Kou, Yunhai Tong, Mao Yang, and Lidong Zhou. 2020. Textnas: A neural architecture search space tailored for text representation. In AAAI." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.364, + 0.487, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.535, + 0.487, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhuofeng Wu, Sinong Wang, Jiatao Gu, Rui Hou, Yuxiao Dong, V. G. Vinod Vydiswaran, and Hao Ma. 2022. Idpg: An instance-dependent prompt generation method. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.614, + 0.487, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2018. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.667, + 0.487, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2019. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.72, + 0.487, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuhui Xu, Lingxi Xie, Wenrui Dai, Xiaopeng Zhang, Xin Chen, Guo-Jun Qi, Hongkai Xiong, and Qi Tian. 2021. Partially-connected neural architecture search for reduced computational redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43:2953-2970." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.813, + 0.487, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arber Zela, Thomas Elsken, Tonmoy Saikia, Yassine Marrakchi, Thomas Brox, and Frank Hutter. 2019. Understanding and robustifying differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1909.09656." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Zhang, Felix Wu, Arzoo Katiyar, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Revisiting few-sample bert fine-tuning. *ArXiv*, abs/2006.05987." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Zhang, Wei Zhu, Jinfan Zhang, Peng Wang, Rize Jin, and Tae-Sun Chung. 2022. PCEE-BERT: Accelerating BERT inference via patient and confident early exiting. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 327-338, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.189, + 0.882, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Junchi Yan, Peng Gao, and Guotong Xie. 2021. Automatic student network search for knowledge distillation. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2446-2453. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.265, + 0.882, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongpeng Zhou, Minghao Yang, Jun Wang, and Wei Pan. 2019. Bayesnas: A bayesian approach for neural architecture search. *ArXiv*, abs/1905.04919." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.315, + 0.882, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu. 2021a. Autonlu: Architecture search for sentence and cross-sentence attention modeling with redesigned search space. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 10, pages 155-168. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.417, + 0.882, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu. 2021b. AutoRC: Improving BERT based relation classification models via architecture search. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: Student Research Workshop, pages 33-43, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.533, + 0.882, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu. 2021c. LeeBERT: Learned early exit for BERT with cross-level optimization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2968-2980, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.635, + 0.882, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Ling Chai, Yunxiao Fan, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, and Xiaoling Wang. 2021a. paht_nlp @ MEDIQA 2021: Multi-grained query focused multi-answer summarization. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 96-102, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.737, + 0.882, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Xiaoling Wang, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Discovering better model architectures for medical query understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Industry Papers, pages 230-237, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.853, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu, Peng Wang, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2023. Acf: Aligned contrastive fin-tuning for language and vision tasks. In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7431" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CategoryDatasetsltrainlldevlltestl|y|TypeLabels
Single-sentenceSST-26634910008722sentimentpositive, negative
CoLA85515215222linguistic acceptabilityacceptable, not acceptable
Sentence-pairMNLI3917021000196473NLIentailment, neutral, contradiction
MRPC266810004082paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
QNLI103743100054632NLIentailment, not entailment
QQP3628461000404302paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
RTE149010002772NLIentailment, not entailment
STS-B5750750751-semantic similarity-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.217, + 0.884, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: The dataset statistics of the GLUE benchmark tasks evaluated in this work. For MNLI task, the number of samples in the test set is summed by matched and mismatched samples. \\( |\\mathcal{V}| \\) is the number of classes for a classification task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.286, + 0.489, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guo Tong Xie. 2021c. Gaml-bert: Improving bert early exiting by gradient aligned mutual learning. In EMNLP." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.338, + 0.49, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2021d. Autotrans: Automating transformer design via reinforced architecture search. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing*, pages 169–182, Cham. Springer International Publishing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.417, + 0.49, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhu, Xiaofeng Zhou, Keqiang Wang, Xun Luo, Xiepeng Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2019. PANLP at MEDIQA 2019: Pre-trained language models, transfer learning and knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task, pages 380-388, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.521, + 0.49, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Barret Zoph and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. *ArXiv*, abs/1611.01578." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.574, + 0.49, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.652, + 0.49, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.73, + 0.49, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuhui Zuo, Wei Zhu, and Guoyong GUET Cai. 2022. Continually detection, rapidly react: Unseen rumors detection based on continual prompt-tuning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3029-3041, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.839, + 0.427, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Datasets and evaluation metrics" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.866, + 0.271, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Dataset splits" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The detailed statistics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.286, + 0.71, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Evaluation metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.307, + 0.885, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For MNLI, we report the average of the accuracy scores on the matched and mis-matched test set. For MRPC and QQP, we report acc-f1, which is the average of accuracy and F1 scores. For STS-B, we report corr, which denotes the average of the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. For CoLA, we report mcc, which is the Matthews correlation. For all other tasks, we report accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.45, + 0.851, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Appendix for experimental settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.476, + 0.884, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Details of experiments We run our methods and baseline method on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) following the previous works. All datasets are downloaded via the HuggingFace Datasets library. Since the test split of these tasks are invisible to the researchers, we randomly split off 1k samples from the training set as validation set for large datasets(QQP, QNLI, SST2, MNLI), and use the remaining as the training set, and use the original validation set as the test set. For other datasets, we randomly split the original validation set in half as the validation set and the test set, and use the original train set as our train set. The same dataset is split differently with different random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.702, + 0.885, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each experiment setting, we repeat the experiment with 5 seeds, and report the average score and standard deviation. In all experiments, the maximum sequence length is 128 for the tasks. We mainly use the RoBERTa-large model (355M parameters) as the backbone model, but we also adopt the GPT2-large and DeBERTa-large the backbone models for ablation studies. We freeze the pretrained parameters in all experiments except full-model finetuning. We use AdamW as the optimizer with a linear learning rate decay schedule and \\(6\\%\\) of the training steps for warm-up." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.799, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5https://huggingface.co/docs/datasets/index" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7432" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train the hyper-network on the train set \\(D_{train}\\) following (Liu et al., 2019a). For training epochs, we set \\(K_{1} = 5\\) and \\(K_{2} = 1\\) on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and \\(K_{1} = 20\\) and \\(K_{2} = 5\\) on low-resource datasets. We will run the search procedure once for each task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.199, + 0.49, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After the hyper-network is fully discretized, instead of retraining from scratch, we further train the remained network for \\( K_{2} \\) epochs, and we evaluate the model on the dev set and save the model checkpoint every \\( I_{eval} \\) steps. The best checkpoint on the dev set is used to run predictions on the test set. We report the average scores on the test set and standard deviations across 5 random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.329, + 0.49, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Other hyper-parameters We do pilot experiments on SST-2 using learning rates in \\(\\{2\\mathrm{e} - 5,5\\mathrm{e} - 5,\\) \\(1\\mathrm{e} - 4,2\\mathrm{e} - 4\\}\\) , and find that 1e-4 performs the best. For fine-tuning, we try learning rates in \\(\\{1\\mathrm{e} - 5,2\\mathrm{e} -\\) \\(5,5\\mathrm{e} - 5\\}\\) and find that 2e-5 performs the best. The number of training epochs for the baselines is set as \\(K = 5\\) on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and \\(K = 20\\) on smaller datasets. We apply these hyper-parameters to all baselines, and no further hyperparameter-tuning are conducted. Therefore, the comparison is fair for all methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.52, + 0.486, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Experimental results on the CIFAR-10 task" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further validate that our GDNAS method can obtain better search performances than the DNAS baselines, we now conduct experiments in the general NAS setting. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we conduct neural architecture search on the CIFAR-10 dataset (Krizhevsky, 2009) based on the search space of DARTS. We keep all the search settings identical to DARTS. We first train the hyper-network with frozen architectural weights for 50 epochs. After selecting the operation on an edge, we tune the hyper-net for 8 epochs to let the modified hyper-network to adjust. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we run the search and architecture selection phase with four random seeds and report both the best and average test errors of the obtained architectures. The results are reported in Table 8, which compares GDNAS with the DNAS baseline methods. Our GDNAS method achieves \\(2.52\\%\\) test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days. The results of GDNAS is comparable to other method (like P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)) with more complex" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.601, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "procedures." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.112, + 0.86, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Learned architectures on the GLUE tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.155, + 0.883, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present the learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks. The learned adapter architecture are presented in Table 9, 10, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7433" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.198, + 0.139, + 0.806, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ArchitectureTest Error (%)Params (M)Search Cost (GPU days)Search Framework
NASNet-A (Zoph et al., 2017)2.653.32000RL
AmoebaNet (Real et al., 2018)3.343.23150evolution
ENAS (Pham et al., 2018)2.894.60.5RL
DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a)3.023.30.4DNAS
SNAS (Xie et al., 2018)2.852.81.5DNAS
BayesNAS (Zhou et al., 2019)2.813.40.2DNAS
P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)2.503.40.3DNAS
R-DARTS (Zela et al., 2019)2.95-1.6DNAS
GDNAS (ours)2.523.30.6DNAS
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.326, + 0.325, + 0.672, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: The search results on the CIFAR-10 task." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.216, + 0.461, + 0.789, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1FFNelunull_ACTmha_8
2----
3----
4FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
5Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_2
6FFNgelu_newleaky_reluconv_3
7FFNnull_ACTtanhmha_2
8----
9Attnelureluconv_3
10----
11Attngelu_newreluconv_1
12Attngelu_newreluconv_3
13Blockreluleaky_reluconv_1
14Attnswishreluconv_3
15FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
16Blockleaky_relureluconv_5
17FFNleaky_relureluconv_1
18Attnleaky_relunull_ACTskip_connect
19FFNrelureluconv_3
20FFNgelu_newnull_ACTconv_3
21----
22Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
23Attntanhnull_ACTconv_3
24FFNtanhnull_ACTmha_2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.815, + 0.885, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: The learned adapter architectures on the RTE task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only \"-\", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7434" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.214, + 0.299, + 0.788, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTconv_5
2----
3FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
4Attntanhnull_ACTmha_2
5Attnelunull_ACTskip_connect
6FFNgelu_newreluconv_5
7Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_3
8----
9Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_5
10FFNrelureluconv_3
11Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
12----
13Blocktanhnull_ACTskip_connect
14----
15FFNswishswishconv_1
16Blockrelureluconv_1
17FFNreluswishconv_3
18FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
19Attngelu_newrelumha_8
20FFNswishrelumha_8
21Attnswishnull_ACTconv_3
22Attnelunull_ACTconv_3
23Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTmha_8
24Attnelunull_ACTmha_2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.654, + 0.885, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: The learned adapter architectures on the SST-2 task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only \"-\", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7435" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.145, + 0.233, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.169, + 0.554, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.188, + 0.233, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.697, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.231, + 0.233, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.257, + 0.67, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.274, + 0.233, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.215, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.348, + 0.531, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.365, + 0.249, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.408, + 0.249, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.499, + 0.249, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.575, + 0.249, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.634, + 0.249, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.741, + 0.249, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.495, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.788, + 0.207, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 6" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.847, + 0.237, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 6.2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.878, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7436" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 6.2, Appendix C" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.88, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 6.4, Section 6.5, Section 6.6" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.88, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 6.2" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.4, + 0.88, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.476, + 0.88, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.593, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7437" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_origin.pdf b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9a250098fdb0eb6b23861f5e14c51f9eae0b5ce --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/55f2333f-7821-49a3-9f81-0d94e944171c_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d926b7119d23d46e7b2446665548ec63122969b60da59f4e33bf5ae8b4fd6b54 +size 561241 diff --git a/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/full.md b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..249c10a8ad6dd645cb97de94b41e05e65ca32aa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,467 @@ +# Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters + +Yuming Zhang $^{1}$ , Peng Wang $^{2*}$ , Ming Tan $^{3*}$ , Wei Zhu $^{4*†}$ + +1 College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University + +2 Tomorrow Advancing Life + +$^{3}$ Southern University of Science and Technology + +$^{4}$ East China Normal University + +# Abstract + +Recently, a series of works have looked into further improving the adapter-based tuning by manually designing better adapter architectures. Understandably, these manually designed solutions are sub-optimal. In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework to automatically learn the optimal adapter architectures for better task adaptation of pre-trained models (PTMs). First, we construct a unified search space for adapter architecture designs. In terms of the optimization method on the search space, we propose a simple-yet-effective method, GDNAS, for better architecture optimization. Extensive experiments show that our Learned Adapter framework can outperform the previous parameter-efficient tuning (PETuning) baselines while tuning comparable or fewer parameters. Moreover: (a) the learned adapter architectures are explainable and transferable across tasks. (b) We demonstrate that our architecture search space design is valid. + +# 1 Introduction + +Increasingly large pre-trained models (Han et al., 2021; Devlin et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019b; Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Raffel et al., 2019) built upon the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) have been emerging and achieving the state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on a variety of downstream tasks (Gao et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019; Zhu, 2021b; Zuo et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021b; Zhu et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019). Despite their effectiveness, these large-scale models also bring the curse of prohibitive computation (Zhu et al., 2021c; Zhu, 2021c; Sun et al., 2022) and storage costs during the adaptations to downstream tasks due to the gradient computation of the whole model and the giant size of the fine-tuned checkpoint. + +![](images/c381f6c42b781ff366b7435f76d5f8bb03c20bef34feabb7424488a3da5340b3.jpg) +Figure 1: Overall comparison between our Learned Adapter framework and baselines. The $x$ -axis is the number of tunable parameters, and the $y$ -axis is the average performance on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. The details can be found in Section 5. + +Recently, parameter efficient tuning (PETuning) has raised much attention in the research field since it can only train a small portion of PTMs and keep the vast majority of parameters frozen, thus alleviating the computation costs during full finetuning. A series of studies (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; BenZaken et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021a; Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) has verified that PETuning can achieve competitive performance compared to conventional finetuning with very few trainable parameters, resulting in a considerable reduction in model adaptation costs. Adapter-based methods (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; He et al., 2021) inject newly-introduced layers after or around the attention or feed-forward modules of the Transformer block, and yield promising results by fine-tuning a small portion of the PTM's parameters. + +Recently, a branch of recent research has ad + +![](images/241adbab414f8f4c0fad70fa5b045d3c058158cc5bb7d59957e1a5899357ea52.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall framework of our Learned Adapter. + +![](images/4a205de605cc8d6a9b18ecb0a0736f4db5c39a6ccfffccf26359f528d01c2815.jpg) + +![](images/1fae0fd2febc84147f08f0766bd24b1bf8a4061867ecb3c24659d3d15075fbda.jpg) + +vanced the understanding of adapter-based tuning more deeply and improved the adapters' architectures to improve parameter efficiency further. Adaptable adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) propose that adapters at different layers should have different activation functions. Thus they fit the rational activation functions to downstream tasks during parameter tuning. AdapterDrop (Rücklé et al., 2020) tries to reduce the number of adapters' parameter number by not inserting adapters on the lower layers. He et al. (2021) bridge connections among different PETuning approaches to form a unified framework and further propose to insert adapters in parallel to the modules of the Transformer block. Jie and Deng (2022) and Sung et al. (2022) propose to add encoding operations between the projection layers of an adapter and achieve better PETuning performances. The above empirical evidence implies that altering the adapters' architecture designs can help to improve the PETuning performances of adapters with even fewer tunable parameters. Predictably, such an optimal architecture is difficult to construct manually and may vary across different PTM backbones and tasks. Therefore, we propose to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically. + +We present the Learned Adapter framework to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically. We first construct a unified search space (Figure 2) that considers various design choices of adapters, including the activation functions, encoding operations, and how the adapters are connected to the PTM backbone. In terms of the specific + +methodology for optimization on the search space, make a simple-yet-effective modification to the optimization method in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), which is better at identifying the proper components for adapters at different intermediate layers. + +We conduct extensive experiments to study the effectiveness of our Learned Adapter framework. The experimental results show that with $0.068\%$ parameters, we can recover $99.5\%$ finetuning performances on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmark. Moreover, the searched architecture outperforms the manually designed PETuning baselines while tuning fewer parameters. Figure 1 depicts the overall comparison between our Learned Adapter and the baselines. Furthermore, the learned architectures of adapters are transferable across tasks, which significantly strengthens the usefulness of the searched structures. Further experiments demonstrate that our newly proposed search space for adapters is valid. + +# 2 Related work + +Adapter-based tuning. One of the most important research lines of PETuning is adapter-based tuning. Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) inserts adapter modules with bottleneck architecture between every consecutive Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) sublayers. AdapterFusion (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) only inserts sequential adapters after the feed-forward module. Adapter-based tuning methods have comparable results with model tuning when only tuning a fraction of the backbone model's parameter number. Due to their amazing results on PETuning, a + +branch of literature has investigated the architecture of adapters in search of further improvements. He et al. (2021) analyze a wide range of PETuning methods and show that they are essentially equivalent. They also propose the general architecture of PETuning. AdapterDrop (Rückle et al., 2020) investigates the efficiency of removing adapters from lower layers. Adaptive adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) investigate the activation functions of adapters and propose to learn the activation functions of adapters via optimizing the parameters of rational functions as a part of the model parameters. Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) uses low-rank parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to compress adapters' tunable parameters. There is also work (Sung et al., 2022; Jie and Deng, 2022) trying to add different encoding operations, like self-attention operations and convolutions between the bottleneck structure of adapters, and achieve better performances. + +Our work complements this branch of literature by investigating: (a) whether and how the adapter architectures affect the PETuning performances, and whether different layers of PTMs need different adapter architectures; (b) whether we can obtain better adapter architectures via neural architecture search. + +Other PETuning methods Another main research line of PETuning is the prompt-based tuning that inserts some additional soft prompts into the hidden states instead of injecting new neural modules to PTMs. Prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) and P-tuning (Liu et al., 2022) insert a soft prompt to word embeddings only, and can achieve competitive results when applied to supersized PTMs. Prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021) insert prompts to every hidden layer of PTM. IDPG (Wu et al., 2022) uses the prompt generator with parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to generate a soft prompt for every instance. There are also some other popular PETuning methods, such as BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021) which only tunes the bias terms, LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) which optimizes low-rank decomposition matrices of the weights within self-attention layers. + +Neural architecture search In the early attempts, neural architecture search (NAS) requires massive computations, like thousands of GPU days (Zoph and Le, 2017; Zoph et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Recently, a particular group of one-shot NAS, led + +by the seminal work DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) has attracted much attention. DARTS formulates the search space into a super-network that can adjust itself in a continuous space so that the network and architectural parameters can be optimized alternately (bi-level optimization) using gradient descent. A series of literature try to improve the performance and efficiency of DARTS, such as Xie et al. (2019), Chen et al. (2021), Chu et al. (2021), Nayman et al. (2019). SNAS (Xie et al., 2019) reformulate DARTS as a credit assignment task while maintaining the differentiability. Gao et al. (2020) penalize the entropy of the architecture parameters to encourage discretization on the hyper-network. P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021) analyze the issues during the DARTS bi-level optimization, and propose a series of modifications. PC-DARTS (Xu et al., 2021) reduces the memory cost during search by sampling a portion of the channels in supernetworks. FairDARTS (Chu et al., 2021) change the softmax operations in DARTS into sigmoid and introduce a zero-one loss to prune the architectural parameters. XNAS (Nayman et al., 2019) dynamically wipes out inferior architectures and enhances superior ones. NAS is widely applied in both computer vision and natural language processing, especially in knowledge distillation (Zhu, 2021a; Zhang et al., 2021). + +Our work complements the literature by examining the optimization of DARTS on our search space and propose a new training procedure that does not require re-training after discretization. + +# 3 Search space of Learned Adapter + +# 3.1 Pilot experiments and motivations + +In this subsection, we conduct a series of experiments on the RTE (Dagan et al., 2005) and MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) datasets to demonstrate the necessity of investigating the architecture of adapters. The baseline model $\mathcal{M}$ is RoBERTa-large model with an parallel adapter at the feed-forward module (FFN adapter) (He et al., 2021). The backbone model is frozen and we only tune the adapters on downstream tasks. The bottleneck dimension is 32 and the activation function is ReLU. The other experimental settings follow Appendix B. We now consider a series of simple modifications to the baseline model. + +Modifying the activation function We replace the activation functions of the adapters from ReLU to GeLU, SWISH or Tanh, while keeping the other + +
ModelRTEMRPC
M79.1 (0.5)89.3 (0.4)
Mgelu79.3 (0.2)89.5 (0.3)
Mswish79.6 (0.3)89.2 (0.4)
Mtanh79.2 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)
Msa79.5 (0.3)89.6 (0.2)
Mconv79.5 (0.6)89.4 (0.5)
M attenu79.0 (0.4)89.1 (0.3)
Mblock79.6 (0.5)89.4 (0.3)
+ +Table 1: Results of the pilot experiments. + +settings unchanged. The three modified models are denoted as $\mathcal{M}_{gelu}$ , $\mathcal{M}_{swish}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{tanh}$ , respectively. + +Adding encoding operations We add a self-attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) or a convolutional operation of kernel size 3 after the downprojection and before the activation function. The two variants of model $\mathcal{M}$ are denoted as $\mathcal{M}_{sa}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{conv}$ , respectively. Since extra operations introduce more parameters, we reduce the bottleneck dimension of $\mathcal{M}_{sa}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{conv}$ to 24 to ensure fair comparison. + +Alternative adapter placements Instead of inserting the adapter around the FFN module of the transformer block, we now consider: (1) $\mathcal{M}_{\text {attn }}$ inserts the adapters at the attention modules (attn adapter); (2) $\mathcal{M}_{\text {block }}$ inserts the adapters around the entire transformer block (block adapter). Note that the setting of block adapters is theoretically supported by the general framework of PETuning in He et al. (2021) but not considered by the previous work. In this work, we will demonstrate the usefulness of block adapters via experiments. + +Table 1 reports the experimental results of the above models. The evaluation metrics for the RTE and MRPC tasks are introduced by Appendix A.2. We can see that the four simple modifications to the baseline model, $\mathcal{M}_{gelu}$ , $\mathcal{M}_{sa}$ , $\mathcal{M}_{conv}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{block}$ , can slightly outperform $\mathcal{M}$ , demonstrating that the adapter architectures are essential for adapter tuning, and it is promising to design better adapter architectures for better adapter tuning performances. + +The pilot experiments raise a vital research question: What are the optimal architectures for adapters? Obviously, such an optimal architecture will be different across tasks and PTM models and even across different intermediate layers of a PTM, making it impossible for manual designs. We are motivated to investigate the problem of optimizing the architectures of adapters via neural architecture + +search. + +# 3.2 General architecture of adapters + +As depicted in Figure 2, we now construct the search space of the Learned Adapter. The adapter is a bottleneck architecture with bottleneck dimension $r$ , consisting of down-projection layer $\mathrm{MLP}_d$ , an activation function $g_1$ , an encoder layer $\mathrm{Enc}$ , another activation function $g_2$ and finally a up-projection layer $\mathrm{MLP}_u$ . Formally, the hidden states $h_x$ goes through the adapter and becomes + +$$ +h _ {x} ^ {(A)} = \operatorname {M L P} _ {u} \left(g _ {2} \left(\operatorname {E n c} \left(g _ {1} \left(\operatorname {M L P} _ {d} \left(h _ {x}\right)\right)\right)\right)\right). \tag {1} +$$ + +Following He et al. (2021), the hidden representation $h_x$ will also go through the backbone's certain encoding module BEnc, and the adapted hidden states will become $h_x' = \mathrm{BEnc}(h_x) + h_x^{(A)}$ . Following (Wu et al., 2022; Mahabadi et al., 2021; Le et al., 2021), we employ the parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (PHM) layer (Le et al., 2021) with parameter $n$ to reduce the parameters of $\mathrm{MLP}_d$ and $\mathrm{MLP}_u$ . The PHM layer has a parameter complexity of $\mathcal{O}(rd / n)$ , reducing the parameters of the projection layers by at most $\frac{1}{n}$ . + +# 3.3 Search space + +We now formally introduce the search space of our Learned Adapter framework. The whole search space contains three types of search cells as shown in Figure 2: + +Activation Search Cell The Activation Search Cell is designated to choose the proper activation functions $g_{1}$ and $g_{1}$ from several candidates. Similar to So et al. (2019), the collection of candidate activation functions considered is: (a) ReLU (Agarap, 2018); (b) GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016); (c) SWISH (Ramachandran et al., 2017); (d) Tanh (Krizhevsky et al., 2012); (e) NulAct, which means no activation function and not to make changes to the input. + +Encoder Search Cell As is shown in Figure 2, different from (Wang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021b), we construct our encoder cell as a simple DAG with a single edge. Our collection of encoder operations consists of the following four groups: (a) 1-d convolutional layers, with stride 1, same padding, output filters equal to the input's dimension, and kernel size equal to 1, 3, 5, or 7 (denoted as conv_k, $k = 1, 3, 5, 7$ ). (b) Multi-head self-attention (MHA) layers (Vaswani et al., 2017), with head size equal to 2 or 8 (denoted as mha_k, + +$k = 2,8)$ . (c) Skip connection (He et al., 2015), denoted as skip-connect. (d) The null encoding operation that multiplies zero tensors to the input (null).1 + +Adapter Placement Search Cell This search cell is designated to decide the placement of the adapter in an intermediate transformer block. We consider three candidate placements shown in Figure 2:² (a) FFN adapter, that is, to insert the adapter in parallel to the feed-forward module; (b) Attn adapter, parallel to the self-attention module; (c) Block adapter inserts the adapter in parallel to the whole transformer block. This placement option is supported by the theoretical analysis of He et al. (2021) but has not been considered by the literature. In the experiments, we will show that including the above three choices for adapter placements are necessary. + +Note that the above three search cells are single-edge DAGs. Following Pham et al. (2018); Wang et al. (2020); Zhu et al. (2021b); Zhu (2021a); Zhu et al. (2021d), we consider the macro search space, that is, different adapter architectures are learned for different intermediate layers. Intuitively, the macro search space allows for idiosyncratic architectures for different intermediate layers, leading to easier model adaptation. + +Despite the simple structures of search cell DAGs compared to the general NAS literature, our macro search space can result in $6.38\mathrm{e} + 90$ combinations of different adapter architectures across different intermediate layers of the PTM backbones. Note that our search space contains the adapter architectures from Sung et al. (2022); Jie and Deng (2022) as special cases. + +# 4 Search Method + +# 4.1 Preliminaries on DARTS + +Assume there is a pre-defined space of operations denoted by $\mathcal{O}$ , where each element, $o(\cdot)$ , denotes a neural network operation, like convolutional operation, self-attention, activation, etc. DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) initialize a hypernetwork in which each block is a search cell, that is, a fully connected directed acyclic graph (DAG) with N nodes. Let $(i,j)$ denote a pair of + +nodes in the DAG. The core idea of DARTS is to use a weighted sum to include all $|\mathcal{O}|$ operations in $\mathcal{O}$ , $f_{i,j}(z_i) = \sum_{o\in \mathcal{O}}a_{i,j}^o\cdot o(z_i)$ , where $a_{i,j}^{o} = \frac{\exp\alpha_{i,j}^{o}}{\sum_{o^{\prime}\in\mathcal{O}}\exp\alpha_{i,j}^{o^{\prime}}}$ , $z_{i}$ denotes the output of the $i$ -th node, and $\alpha_{i,j}^{o}$ is the architectural parameters that represents the weight (or the importance score) of $o(\cdot)$ in edge $(i,j)$ . The output of a node is the sum of all input flow, i.e., $z_{j} = \sum_{i < j}f_{i,j}(z_{i})$ . The output of the entire cell is formed by summing the last two nodes. + +This design makes the entire framework differentiable to both layer weights and architectural parameters $\alpha_{i,j}^{o}$ so that it is possible to perform architecture search in an end-to-end fashion. After the search process is completed, the discretization procedure extracts the final sub-network by selecting the best operation on each edge and dropping the lower-score operations. And the final sub-network will train on the original train set with randomly initialized parameters. + +# 4.2 Discussion on the search method + +The standard optimization method for the above framework is the bi-level optimization proposed in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a). However, there are recent works arguing that the single-level optimization method could also work for the DARTS framework. As pointed out by Bi et al. (2019) and Bi et al. (2020), bi-level optimization suffers considerable inaccuracy of gradient estimation and the potential instability can increase with the complexity of the search space. And Bi et al. (2020) conduct experiments to demonstrate that one-level optimization performs comparably with bi-level optimization but with better efficiency. Their experiments are conducted mainly on computer vision benchmarks like CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky et al., 2012). In this work, we would like to investigate which optimization method is better under our framework. + +Note that the original DARTS requires one to re-train the learned networks from scratch after the search procedure, which definitely introduce additional computation costs. In this work, we propose to gradually discretize the hyper-network and obtain a sub-network without re-training. We will refer to this method as gradually discretizing neural architecture search (GDNAS). We first train the complete hyper-network $M$ for $K_{1}$ epochs. Then we select a edge $e$ in the search space to discretize (for example, the edge in the encoder cell). Dis + +cretization simply means selecting the operation $o_{*}^{e}$ with highest architectural parameter, and drop the other operations. Now we have obtain a new reduced hyper-network $M$ . The discretized edge may cause the performance of the hyper-network to drop significantly, so we further finetune the hyper-network $M$ for $K_{2}$ epochs. + +In addition to the advantage of not to retrain the learned network, GDNAS retains the knowledge in the hyper-network, and obtain the performance gains against the re-trained sub-network. This is analogous to the model pruning literature, where a network pruned from a larger one is usually better than the network trained from scratch (Liang et al., 2021). + +# Algorithm 1: GDNAS + +Input: A hyper-network $M$ , all edges $\mathcal{E}$ on hyper-network $M$ ; +Output: Set of selected operations $\{o_e^*\}_{e\in \mathcal{E}}$ +Data: Training set $D_{train}$ , a batch of validation data $B_{val}$ +1 Train hyper-network $M$ on the training set $D_{train}$ for $K_{1}$ epochs; +2 for edge $e$ in $\mathcal{E}$ do +3 Select the best operation $o_e^* \gets \arg \max_o o_e^*$ ; +4 Discretize edge $e$ of hyper-network $M$ by only keeping $o_e^*$ ; +5 Further train the hyper-network $M$ on $D_{train}$ for $K_{2}$ epochs; + +# 5 Experiments + +# 5.1 Evaluation datasets + +We evaluate the performance of the methods on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmarks. These benchmarks cover multiple tasks of paraphrase detection (MRPC, QQP), sentiment classification (SST-2), natural language inference (MNLI, RTE, QNLI), linguistic acceptability (CoLA). + +Since the original test sets of the GLUE benchmark are not publicly available, we follow Zhang et al. (2020) and Mahabadi et al. (2021) to construct the train/dev/test splits as follows to ensure a fair comparison: (a) for datasets with fewer than 10k samples (RTE, MRPC, STS-B, CoLA), we divide + +the original validation set in half, using one half for validation and the other for testing. (b) for larger datasets, we split 1k samples from the training set as the development set, and use the original development set as the test set. The detailed statistics and evaluation metrics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7 of Appendix A. + +# 5.2 Experiment Settings + +We run all the experiments on NVIDIA V100 32GB GPUs. We mainly evaluate our method on the GLUE benchmarks with the RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019c) backbone model. We also evaluate our framework with the DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019) backbones. We use the HugginFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) for implementing all the methods. Unless otherwise specified, GDNAS will adopt the bi-level optimization method of DARTS. For GDNAS' discretization procedure, we set $K_{1} = 5$ and $K_{2} = 0.5$ on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and $K_{1} = 20$ and $K_{2} = 2$ on low-resource datasets. And the batch size is set to 128 for dataset with more than 10k training samples, and 32 otherwise. For Learned Adapter, we set the bottleneck dimension $r$ to 32 and select at most one adapter at each transformer layer. For the PHM layers, we use the PyTorch implementation of Le et al. (2021) and set $n$ to 8. We run each task under 5 different random seeds and report the average performance and standard deviation. More details of the experimental settings are put in Appendix B. + +# 5.3 Baselines + +We compare our Learned Adapter framework with the current SOTA baseline methods. + +Fine-tune The traditional fine-tuning methods that train all parameters in the PTM backbone. + +Adapter-based tuning For adapter-based tuning methods, we compare with: (1) Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019); (2) Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021); (3) Parallel Adapter proposed by (He et al., 2021) added on the FFN module; (4) LST (Sung et al., 2022). We re-implement Parallel Adapter with PHM projection layers $(n = 8)$ . + +Prompt-based tuning For prompt-based tuning methods, we compare with (1) Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021), (2) P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021). The number of prompt tokens in these methods is set to 20. + +
MethodTunable +ParamsCoLA +(mcc)SST-2 +(acc)MRPC +(acc-f1)QQP +(acc-f1)STS-B +(corr)MNLI +(acc)QNLI +(acc)RTE +(acc)Avg
Baselines
RoBERTa-large355M65.395.491.590.391.889.894.580.187.3
Prompt Tuning21K54.6 (2.5)90.9 (0.5)74.8 (1.3)87.4 (0.5)90.1 (0.3)83.4 (0.2)92.4 (0.3)68.7 (1.9)80.3
P-tuning v2985K57.3 (2.1)92.3 (0.3)86.9 (1.2)88.1 (0.4)90.4 (0.1)87.3 (0.2)92.9 (0.4)77.2 (2.1)84.1
BitFit273K59.2 (0.9)94.1 (0.3)88.6 (0.8)88.5 (0.6)91.1 (0.3)87.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.2)78.6 (1.4)85.1
LoRA778K59.7 (1.4)93.6 (0.1)88.9 (0.7)88.3 (0.4)90.9 (0.2)87.9 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.8 (1.3)85.2
UNIPELT1.4M61.5 (1.7)93.6 (0.2)89.2 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)91.0 (0.5)87.5 (0.2)92.9 (0.1)79.1 (0.9)85.4
Adapter1.6M63.1 (1.4)93.8 (0.1)87.5 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)90.9 (0.4)88.5 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.9 (1.3)85.6
LST1.7M63.6 (1.5)93.9 (0.2)89.2 (0.7)88.7 (0.2)91.2 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.0 (0.2)79.2 (0.9)85.9
Parallel Adapters279K63.8 (1.5)94.2 (0.3)89.3 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)91.1 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.1)79.1 (0.5)86.0
Compacter279K63.7 (0.9)94.2 (0.4)89.1 (0.7)88.6 (0.3)90.8 (0.2)88.2 (0.2)92.8 (0.2)78.7 (0.9)85.8
Our proposed methods
Learned Adapter294K64.3 (0.9)94.9 (0.3)89.8 (0.9)89.2 (0.3)91.3 (0.2)88.6 (0.2)93.5 (0.2)80.4 (1.3)86.5
+ +Table 2: The Overall comparison on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. We report mean and standard deviation of performance over 5 random seeds. Bold and Underline indicate the best and the second best results. The metric for each task is explained in Appendix A.2. + +Other PETuning methods We also compare: (1) BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021); (3) LoRA (Hu et al., 2021); (4) UNIPET (Mao et al., 2021) combines different types of PETuning methods in an automatic manner. + +We implement Aadpter, BitFit, and LoRA using the OpenDelta library. Other baselines are implemented using their open-sourced codes with their default settings. For a fair comparison, we do not use supplementary training like Wu et al. (2022) to enhance performance. + +# 5.4 Results on the GLUE benchmark + +Table 2 shows the results on GLUE with RoBERTa-large. Our Learned Adapter framework, outperforms the previous PETuning methods and notably preserves $99.4\%$ performance of the full-model fine-tuning method while only tuning 240K to 300K parameters. + +We can observe from Table 2 that: (a) Note that our Learned Adapter framework obtains further improvements by automatically designing adapter architectures for different intermediate layers of the PTM. (b) Note that although we add encoding operations in adapters, the total tunable parameters of the Learned Adapter in the macro setting are fewer than Compacter since our framework can automatically drop adapters on certain layers when necessary. + +# 5.5 Further analysis + +Explanations of the searched architectures To understand the searched adapter architectures under our Learned Adapter framework, we present the + +learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks on Table 9 and 10 in Appendix D, respectively. From the learned adapter architectures, we can observe that: (a) The adapter architecture varies for different layers, showing that different layers require different adapter architectures. (b) On each task, Learned Adapter chooses the null encoding operation on 3-5 intermediate layers, meaning to drop the adapters on these layers. (c) Regarding the adapter placement choices, we find that on each task, all three placement candidates, FFN adapter, Attn adapter, and Block adapter, are selected. This observation demonstrates that introducing block adapters into our search space is necessary. (d) Most adapters select the convolutional operations, and multi-head self-attention operations tend to occur in adapters of deeper layers. (e) around half of the learned adapters choose the NullAct for the second activation function $g_{2}$ . Furthermore, we observe that there are adapters on the deeper transformer layers that requires no activation function but an encoder operation, demonstrating novel design patterns for adapters. + +Exploring the limit of parameter efficiency To explore the limit of parameter efficiency, we train the Learned Adapter, and Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) with different rank parameters $n \in \{1,2,4,8,16,32\}$ . Note that in the main experiments, we set $n$ equal to 4. With larger $n$ , the parameters of adapters will increase proportionally. In Figure 3, we demonstrate the results of the RTE and SST-2 tasks. We can see that the advantages of our Learned Adapter framework become more prominent with lower tunable parameter budgets. The results demonstrate that our framework can + +
SourceTarget
RTESST-2
RTE80.4 (1.3)94.6 (0.1)
SST-280.3 (1.4)94.9 (0.3)
+ +Table 3: Architecture transfer from source datasets to target datasets. The target datasets are in the column names, and the source datasets are in the row names. + +
Search spaceRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
S80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
S180.1 (1.5)94.6 (0.3)
S279.8 (1.0)94.4 (0.4)
Parallel Adapter79.1 (0.5)94.2 (0.3)
+ +effectively deliver the most proper architectures under the given parameter budgets and boost the performance of adapter-based tuning. + +Architectures' Transferability We now evaluate the transferability of the searched structures by the Learned Adapter. The RTE and SST-2 datasets are used as source and target datasets. We search the adapter architectures on the source dataset and train the searched architectures from scratch on the target task, and report the average and standard deviation of scores over 5 random seeds on table 3. We can see from Table 3 that the searched architectures are highly transferable. The transferred architectures can already achieve comparable or better performances than most baseline models (Table 2). The transferability guarantees the reusability of the searched adapter architectures. + +Ablation studies on the search space We now conduct an ablation study of our search space by reducing our search space $S$ to a singleton step-by-step: (a) reduce the activation cells by only keeping the ReLU activation for $g_{1}$ and the NullAct for $g_{2}$ $(S_{1})$ ; (b) further reduce the encoder cell to only include skip-connect $(S_{2})$ ; (c) further reduce the adapter placement cell to only include FFN adapter, and now the search space only contains Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021). Table 4 reports the search results on different search spaces, showing that that dropping any components of the whole search space results in performance losses. The results demonstrate that each search cell in our search space design is necessary and beneficial. + +Working with other PTM backbones To verify the general applicability of our Learned Adapter + +Table 4: Experimental results for the ablation study of our Learned Adapter search space. + +
MethodTunable +ParamsRTE +(acc)SST-2 +(acc)
DeBERTa-large backbone
Fine-tuning406M82.1 (1.1)95.7 (0.2)
Adapters1.6M80.7 (1.3)93.8 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters279K81.5 (1.2)93.9 (0.3)
Learned Adapter245K82.0 (0.9)94.5 (0.3)
GPT2-large backbone
Fine-tuning774M79.5 (0.8)95.5 (0.1)
Adapters2.7M78.1 (0.9)93.9 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters462K78.5 (1.2)93.8 (0.1)
Learned Adapter482K79.1 (0.6)94.2 (0.2)
+ +Table 5: Results on 2 GLUE tasks using DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large models as the backbone. Bold indicates the best PETuning results. + +framework, we also conduct experiments on two other widely used PTM backbones, DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020), and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are shown in Table 5. Our Learned Adapter successfully outperforms the adapter-based tuning baselines on both pre-trained backbones. This result enhances the reliability of our framework. + +We now validate our Learned Adapter framework on other pre-trained backbone: DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are presented in Table 5. + +# 5.6 Discussions on the search method + +Search efficiency of GDNAS We use the RTE task to demonstrate the search efficiency. Running the RTE task with DARTS takes 1.5h (70.5min for bi-level optimization for 25 epochs and 21.6min for re-training with 25 epochs). Since GDNAS does not require re-training, it requires 1.2h (73.3min for training the hyper-network for $k_{1} + 3*K_{2} = 26$ epochs). Our method consumes around three times the training time of Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021), which is affordable compared to manually designing different architectures and running numerous evaluations. + +Ablation study of search methods We now run Learned Adapter with GDNAS with single-level optimization, the original DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) and ENAS (Cai et al., 2018). The results are shown in Table 6. The results demonstrate that our GDNAS are effective in discovering better adapter architectures. In addition, the results demonstrate that bi-level optimization obtains slightly better results. + +Performance on a NAS benchmark To further + +![](images/4c888ef99f557d4305707afded8b40fe105d7428728493201240466644a83bc3.jpg) +(a) RTE + +![](images/35eb84d134582a80016aeb32d56e67c6d2686d7f0f9a4b02c35440ee420dc8b7.jpg) +(b) SST-2 +Figure 3: Performances under different PHM rank $n$ . The $x$ -axis represents the number of tunable parameters, and the $y$ -axis represents the performance. The performance of full-model fine-tuning is in dotted horizontal line. + +
Search methodRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
GDNAS80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
GDNAS (single-level)80.2 (0.9)94.7 (0.2)
DARTS79.8 (1.2)94.5 (0.5)
ENAS80.3 (1.0)94.3 (0.4)
+ +Table 6: Experimental results for the ablation study of the search methods. + +validate our GDNAS method, we conduct experiments on the widely studied neural architecture search benchmark dataset, CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky, 2009). The results are reported in Table 8 of Appendix C. Our GDNAS method achieves $2.52\%$ test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework, which automatically optimizes the adapter architectures. First, we design a unified search space for adapters, taking into account the recent works of manual adapter designs. Second, in light of the issues in the DARTS method, we propose a novel GDNAS method that can deliver better adapter architectures and requires no re-training of the learned adapter architectures. We run extensive experiments and analyses on the GLUE benchmark, demonstrating that our Learned Adapter framework can achieve better tuning performances than the baselines while maintaining parameter efficiency. + +# Limitations + +We showed that our proposed method can greatly improve the performance of parameter efficient tuning on diverse NLU tasks and three different pre + +trained models (i.e., RoBERTa-large, DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large). However, we acknowledge the following limitations: (a) the more super-sized pretrained models with tens of billions of or more parameters were not studied due to limited computation resources. (b) Other tasks in natural language processing, like the text generation tasks, were also not considered. But our framework can be easily transferred to other backbone architectures and different types of tasks. It would be of interest to investigate if the superiority of our method holds for other backbone models and types of tasks. And we will explore it in future work. + +# Ethics Statement + +The finding and proposed method aims to improve the adapter based tuning in terms of tuning parameters and performances. The used datasets are widely used in previous work and, to our knowledge, do not have any attached privacy or ethical issues. + +# References + +Abien Fred Agarap. 2018. Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu). ArXiv, abs/1803.08375. +Elad Ben-Zaken, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. ArXiv, abs/2106.10199. +Kaifeng Bi, Changping Hu, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2019. Stabilizing DARTS with Amended Gradient Estimation on Architectural Parameters. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.11831. +Kaifeng Bi, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2020. Gold-nas: Gradual, one-level, differentiable. ArXiv, abs/2007.03331. + +Han Cai, Tianyao Chen, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Jun Wang. 2018. Efficient architecture search by network transformation. In AAAI. +Xin Chen, Lingxi Xie, Jun Wu, and Qi Tian. 2021. Progressive darts: Bridging the optimization gap for nas in the wild. ArXiv, abs/1912.10952. +Xiangxiang Chu, Bo Zhang, Ruijun Xu, and Jixiang Li. 2021. Fairnas: Rethinking evaluation fairness of weight sharing neural architecture search. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12219-12228. +Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. pages 177-190. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005). +Xiangxiang Gao, Wei Zhu, Jiasheng Gao, and Congrui Yin. 2023. F-pabee: Flexible-patience-based early exiting for single-label and multi-label text classification tasks. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE. +Yuan Gao, Haoping Bai, Zequn Jie, Jiayi Ma, Kui Jia, and Wei Liu. 2020. Mtl-nas: Task-agnostic neural architecture search towards general-purpose multitask learning. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11540-11549. +Demi Guo, Alexander Rush, and Yoon Kim. 2021a. Parameter-efficient transfer learning with diff pruning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4884-4896, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhao Guo, Yuan Ni, Keqiang Wang, Wei Zhu, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Global attention decoder for Chinese spelling error correction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP* 2021, pages 1419–1428, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xu Han, Zhengyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Yuxian Gu, Xiao Liu, Yuqi Huo, Jiezhong Qiu, Liang Zhang, Wentao Han, Minlie Huang, Qin Jin, Yanyan Lan, Yang Liu, + +Zhiyuan Liu, Zhiwu Lu, Xipeng Qiu, Ruihua Song, Jie Tang, Ji rong Wen, Jinhui Yuan, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2021. Pre-trained models: Past, present and future. ArXiv, abs/2106.07139. +Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2110.04366. +Kaiming He, X. Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778. +Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. ArXiv, abs/2006.03654. +Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv: Learning. +Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR. +Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685. +Shibo Jie and Zhifang Deng. 2022. Convolutional by-passes are better vision transformer adapters. ArXiv, abs/2207.07039. +A. Krizhevsky. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. +Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60:84 - 90. +Tuan Le, Marco Bertolini, Frank No'e, and Djork-Arné Clevert. 2021. Parameterized hypercomplex graph neural networks for graph classification. In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks. +Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691. +Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and L. Morgenstern. 2011. The winograd schema challenge. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. +Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190. + +Xiepeng Li, Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Zheng Li, Yuan Ni, Peng Gao, Junchi Yan, and Guotong Xie. 2019. Pingan smart health and SJTU at COIN - shared task: utilizing pre-trained language models and commonsense knowledge in machine reading tasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Commonsense Inference in Natural Language Processing, pages 93-98, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tailin Liang, John Glossner, Lei Wang, Shaobo Shi, and Xiaotong Zhang. 2021. Pruning and Quantization for Deep Neural Network Acceleration: A Survey. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2101.09671. +Chenxi Liu, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, Wei Hua, Li-Jia Li, Li Fei-Fei, Alan Loddon Yuille, Jonathan Huang, and Kevin P. Murphy. 2018. Progressive neural architecture search. In ECCV. +Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. 2019a. Darts: Differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1806.09055. +Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. P-tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. ArXiv, abs/2110.07602. +Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Lam Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fin-tuning across scales and tasks. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019c. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692. +Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, James Henderson, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. Compacter: Efficient low-rank hypercomplex adapter layers. In NeurIPS. +Yuning Mao, Lambert Mathias, Rui Hou, Amjad Almahairi, Hao Ma, Jiawei Han, Wen tau Yih, and Madian Khabsa. 2021. Unipelt: A unified framework for parameter-efficient language model tuning. ArXiv, abs/2110.07577. +Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Quentin Delfosse, Kristian Kersting, and Iryna Gurevych. 2022. Adaptable adapters. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Niv Nayman, Asaf Noy, T. Ridnik, Itamar Friedman, Rong Jin, and Lihi Zelnik-Manor. 2019. Xnas: Neural architecture search with expert advice. *ArXiv*, abs/1906.08031. + +Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rückle, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. AdapterFusion: Non-destructive task composition for transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 487-503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hieu Pham, Melody Y. Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V. Le, and Jeff Dean. 2018. Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing. In ICML. +Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining. +Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. +Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683. +Prajit Ramachandran, Barret Zoph, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Swish: a self-gated activation function. arXiv: Neural and Evolutionary Computing. +Esteban Real, Alok Aggarwal, Yanping Huang, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Andreas Rückle, Gregor Geigle, Max Glockner, Tilman Beck, Jonas Pfeiffer, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Adapterdrop: On the efficiency of adapters in transformers. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +David R. So, Chen Liang, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. The evolved transformer. ArXiv, abs/1901.11117. +Haixia Sun, Jin Xiao, Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Sheng Zhang, Xiaowei Xu, Li Hou, Jiao Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2020. Medical knowledge graph to enhance fraud, waste, and abuse detection on claim data: Model development and performance evaluation. JMIR Med Inform, 8(7):e17653. +Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2409-2421, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yi-Lin Sung, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Lst: Ladder side-tuning for parameter and memory efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2206.06522. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762. +Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In BlackboxNLP@EMNLP. +Yujing Wang, Yaming Yang, Yiren Chen, Jing Bai, Ce Zhang, Guinan Su, Xiaoyu Kou, Yunhai Tong, Mao Yang, and Lidong Zhou. 2020. Textnas: A neural architecture search space tailored for text representation. In AAAI. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhuofeng Wu, Sinong Wang, Jiatao Gu, Rui Hou, Yuxiao Dong, V. G. Vinod Vydiswaran, and Hao Ma. 2022. Idpg: An instance-dependent prompt generation method. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2018. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926. +Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2019. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926. +Yuhui Xu, Lingxi Xie, Wenrui Dai, Xiaopeng Zhang, Xin Chen, Guo-Jun Qi, Hongkai Xiong, and Qi Tian. 2021. Partially-connected neural architecture search for reduced computational redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43:2953-2970. +Arber Zela, Thomas Elsken, Tonmoy Saikia, Yassine Marrakchi, Thomas Brox, and Frank Hutter. 2019. Understanding and robustifying differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1909.09656. +Tianyi Zhang, Felix Wu, Arzoo Katiyar, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Revisiting few-sample bert fine-tuning. *ArXiv*, abs/2006.05987. + +Zhen Zhang, Wei Zhu, Jinfan Zhang, Peng Wang, Rize Jin, and Tae-Sun Chung. 2022. PCEE-BERT: Accelerating BERT inference via patient and confident early exiting. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 327-338, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Junchi Yan, Peng Gao, and Guotong Xie. 2021. Automatic student network search for knowledge distillation. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2446-2453. IEEE. +Hongpeng Zhou, Minghao Yang, Jun Wang, and Wei Pan. 2019. Bayesnas: A bayesian approach for neural architecture search. *ArXiv*, abs/1905.04919. +Wei Zhu. 2021a. Autonlu: Architecture search for sentence and cross-sentence attention modeling with redesigned search space. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 10, pages 155-168. Springer. +Wei Zhu. 2021b. AutoRC: Improving BERT based relation classification models via architecture search. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: Student Research Workshop, pages 33-43, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wei Zhu. 2021c. LeeBERT: Learned early exit for BERT with cross-level optimization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2968-2980, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Ling Chai, Yunxiao Fan, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, and Xiaoling Wang. 2021a. paht_nlp @ MEDIQA 2021: Multi-grained query focused multi-answer summarization. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 96-102, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Xiaoling Wang, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Discovering better model architectures for medical query understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Industry Papers, pages 230-237, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wei Zhu, Peng Wang, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2023. Acf: Aligned contrastive fin-tuning for language and vision tasks. In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. + +
CategoryDatasetsltrainlldevlltestl|y|TypeLabels
Single-sentenceSST-26634910008722sentimentpositive, negative
CoLA85515215222linguistic acceptabilityacceptable, not acceptable
Sentence-pairMNLI3917021000196473NLIentailment, neutral, contradiction
MRPC266810004082paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
QNLI103743100054632NLIentailment, not entailment
QQP3628461000404302paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
RTE149010002772NLIentailment, not entailment
STS-B5750750751-semantic similarity-
+ +Table 7: The dataset statistics of the GLUE benchmark tasks evaluated in this work. For MNLI task, the number of samples in the test set is summed by matched and mismatched samples. $|\mathcal{V}|$ is the number of classes for a classification task. + +Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guo Tong Xie. 2021c. Gaml-bert: Improving bert early exiting by gradient aligned mutual learning. In EMNLP. + +Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2021d. Autotrans: Automating transformer design via reinforced architecture search. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing*, pages 169–182, Cham. Springer International Publishing. + +Wei Zhu, Xiaofeng Zhou, Keqiang Wang, Xun Luo, Xiepeng Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2019. PANLP at MEDIQA 2019: Pre-trained language models, transfer learning and knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task, pages 380-388, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Barret Zoph and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. *ArXiv*, abs/1611.01578. + +Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710. + +Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710. + +Yuhui Zuo, Wei Zhu, and Guoyong GUET Cai. 2022. Continually detection, rapidly react: Unseen rumors detection based on continual prompt-tuning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3029-3041, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. + +# A Datasets and evaluation metrics + +# A.1 Dataset splits + +The detailed statistics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7. + +# A.2 Evaluation metrics + +For MNLI, we report the average of the accuracy scores on the matched and mis-matched test set. For MRPC and QQP, we report acc-f1, which is the average of accuracy and F1 scores. For STS-B, we report corr, which denotes the average of the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. For CoLA, we report mcc, which is the Matthews correlation. For all other tasks, we report accuracy. + +# B Appendix for experimental settings + +Details of experiments We run our methods and baseline method on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) following the previous works. All datasets are downloaded via the HuggingFace Datasets library. Since the test split of these tasks are invisible to the researchers, we randomly split off 1k samples from the training set as validation set for large datasets(QQP, QNLI, SST2, MNLI), and use the remaining as the training set, and use the original validation set as the test set. For other datasets, we randomly split the original validation set in half as the validation set and the test set, and use the original train set as our train set. The same dataset is split differently with different random seeds. + +For each experiment setting, we repeat the experiment with 5 seeds, and report the average score and standard deviation. In all experiments, the maximum sequence length is 128 for the tasks. We mainly use the RoBERTa-large model (355M parameters) as the backbone model, but we also adopt the GPT2-large and DeBERTa-large the backbone models for ablation studies. We freeze the pretrained parameters in all experiments except full-model finetuning. We use AdamW as the optimizer with a linear learning rate decay schedule and $6\%$ of the training steps for warm-up. + +We train the hyper-network on the train set $D_{train}$ following (Liu et al., 2019a). For training epochs, we set $K_{1} = 5$ and $K_{2} = 1$ on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and $K_{1} = 20$ and $K_{2} = 5$ on low-resource datasets. We will run the search procedure once for each task. + +After the hyper-network is fully discretized, instead of retraining from scratch, we further train the remained network for $K_{2}$ epochs, and we evaluate the model on the dev set and save the model checkpoint every $I_{eval}$ steps. The best checkpoint on the dev set is used to run predictions on the test set. We report the average scores on the test set and standard deviations across 5 random seeds. + +Other hyper-parameters We do pilot experiments on SST-2 using learning rates in $\{2\mathrm{e} - 5,5\mathrm{e} - 5,$ $1\mathrm{e} - 4,2\mathrm{e} - 4\}$ , and find that 1e-4 performs the best. For fine-tuning, we try learning rates in $\{1\mathrm{e} - 5,2\mathrm{e} -$ $5,5\mathrm{e} - 5\}$ and find that 2e-5 performs the best. The number of training epochs for the baselines is set as $K = 5$ on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and $K = 20$ on smaller datasets. We apply these hyper-parameters to all baselines, and no further hyperparameter-tuning are conducted. Therefore, the comparison is fair for all methods. + +# C Experimental results on the CIFAR-10 task + +To further validate that our GDNAS method can obtain better search performances than the DNAS baselines, we now conduct experiments in the general NAS setting. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we conduct neural architecture search on the CIFAR-10 dataset (Krizhevsky, 2009) based on the search space of DARTS. We keep all the search settings identical to DARTS. We first train the hyper-network with frozen architectural weights for 50 epochs. After selecting the operation on an edge, we tune the hyper-net for 8 epochs to let the modified hyper-network to adjust. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we run the search and architecture selection phase with four random seeds and report both the best and average test errors of the obtained architectures. The results are reported in Table 8, which compares GDNAS with the DNAS baseline methods. Our GDNAS method achieves $2.52\%$ test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days. The results of GDNAS is comparable to other method (like P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)) with more complex + +procedures. + +# D Learned architectures on the GLUE tasks + +In this section, we present the learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks. The learned adapter architecture are presented in Table 9, 10, respectively. + +
ArchitectureTest Error (%)Params (M)Search Cost (GPU days)Search Framework
NASNet-A (Zoph et al., 2017)2.653.32000RL
AmoebaNet (Real et al., 2018)3.343.23150evolution
ENAS (Pham et al., 2018)2.894.60.5RL
DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a)3.023.30.4DNAS
SNAS (Xie et al., 2018)2.852.81.5DNAS
BayesNAS (Zhou et al., 2019)2.813.40.2DNAS
P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)2.503.40.3DNAS
R-DARTS (Zela et al., 2019)2.95-1.6DNAS
GDNAS (ours)2.523.30.6DNAS
+ +Table 8: The search results on the CIFAR-10 task. + +
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1FFNelunull_ACTmha_8
2----
3----
4FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
5Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_2
6FFNgelu_newleaky_reluconv_3
7FFNnull_ACTtanhmha_2
8----
9Attnelureluconv_3
10----
11Attngelu_newreluconv_1
12Attngelu_newreluconv_3
13Blockreluleaky_reluconv_1
14Attnswishreluconv_3
15FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
16Blockleaky_relureluconv_5
17FFNleaky_relureluconv_1
18Attnleaky_relunull_ACTskip_connect
19FFNrelureluconv_3
20FFNgelu_newnull_ACTconv_3
21----
22Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
23Attntanhnull_ACTconv_3
24FFNtanhnull_ACTmha_2
+ +Table 9: The learned adapter architectures on the RTE task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only "-", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter. + +
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTconv_5
2----
3FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
4Attntanhnull_ACTmha_2
5Attnelunull_ACTskip_connect
6FFNgelu_newreluconv_5
7Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_3
8----
9Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_5
10FFNrelureluconv_3
11Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
12----
13Blocktanhnull_ACTskip_connect
14----
15FFNswishswishconv_1
16Blockrelureluconv_1
17FFNreluswishconv_3
18FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
19Attngelu_newrelumha_8
20FFNswishrelumha_8
21Attnswishnull_ACTconv_3
22Attnelunull_ACTconv_3
23Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTmha_8
24Attnelunull_ACTmha_2
+ +Table 10: The learned adapter architectures on the SST-2 task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only "-", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Left blank. + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Left blank. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Left blank. + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +No response. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +No response. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +No response. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +No response. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +No response. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +No response. + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Section 6 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Section 6.2 + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 6.2, Appendix C +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 6.4, Section 6.5, Section 6.6 +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 6.2 + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/images.zip b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9b11b2e7e80b8a394e8fbe416c4ab3b077767af --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b9414813b5253e7e4027dd2771270b125f84c201de5e272b9841db3cf5701d95 +size 635267 diff --git a/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/layout.json b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..998986cf348492634a352dad26cd22e3c1e07d5c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,12496 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 76, + 498, + 95 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 76, + 498, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 76, + 498, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learned Adapters Are Better Than Manually Designed Adapters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuming Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Peng Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Ming Tan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Wei Zhu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 109, + 446, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4*†}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 125, + 490, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 125, + 490, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 125, + 490, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 139, + 368, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 139, + 368, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 139, + 368, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Tomorrow Advancing Life" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 153, + 423, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 153, + 423, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 153, + 423, + 167 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 153, + 423, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Southern University of Science and Technology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 167, + 381, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 167, + 381, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 167, + 381, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 167, + 381, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " East China Normal University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, a series of works have looked into further improving the adapter-based tuning by manually designing better adapter architectures. Understandably, these manually designed solutions are sub-optimal. In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework to automatically learn the optimal adapter architectures for better task adaptation of pre-trained models (PTMs). First, we construct a unified search space for adapter architecture designs. In terms of the optimization method on the search space, we propose a simple-yet-effective method, GDNAS, for better architecture optimization. Extensive experiments show that our Learned Adapter framework can outperform the previous parameter-efficient tuning (PETuning) baselines while tuning comparable or fewer parameters. Moreover: (a) the learned adapter architectures are explainable and transferable across tasks. (b) We demonstrate that our architecture search space design is valid." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 494, + 154, + 506 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 494, + 154, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 494, + 154, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Increasingly large pre-trained models (Han et al., 2021; Devlin et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019b; Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Raffel et al., 2019) built upon the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) have been emerging and achieving the state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on a variety of downstream tasks (Gao et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019; Zhu, 2021b; Zuo et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021b; Zhu et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019). Despite their effectiveness, these large-scale models also bring the curse of prohibitive computation (Zhu et al., 2021c; Zhu, 2021c; Sun et al., 2022) and storage costs during the adaptations to downstream tasks due to the gradient computation of the whole model and the giant size of the fine-tuned checkpoint." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 514, + 383 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 514, + 383 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 514, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 514, + 383 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c381f6c42b781ff366b7435f76d5f8bb03c20bef34feabb7424488a3da5340b3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 462 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Overall comparison between our Learned Adapter framework and baselines. The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-axis is the number of tunable parameters, and the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-axis is the average performance on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. The details can be found in Section 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 526, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 526, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 526, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, parameter efficient tuning (PETuning) has raised much attention in the research field since it can only train a small portion of PTMs and keep the vast majority of parameters frozen, thus alleviating the computation costs during full finetuning. A series of studies (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; BenZaken et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2021a; Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) has verified that PETuning can achieve competitive performance compared to conventional finetuning with very few trainable parameters, resulting in a considerable reduction in model adaptation costs. Adapter-based methods (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2021; He et al., 2021) inject newly-introduced layers after or around the attention or feed-forward modules of the Transformer block, and yield promising results by fine-tuning a small portion of the PTM's parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, a branch of recent research has ad" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 751, + 162, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 751, + 162, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 751, + 162, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal contribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 279, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 279, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 279, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Corresponding author: michaelwzhu91@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7420" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7420-7437" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 303, + 275 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 303, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 303, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 303, + 275 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "241adbab414f8f4c0fad70fa5b045d3c058158cc5bb7d59957e1a5899357ea52.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 285, + 412, + 298 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 285, + 412, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 285, + 412, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of our Learned Adapter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 401, + 276 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 401, + 276 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 401, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 401, + 276 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4a205de605cc8d6a9b18ecb0a0736f4db5c39a6ccfffccf26359f528d01c2815.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 403, + 73, + 516, + 276 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 403, + 73, + 516, + 276 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 403, + 73, + 516, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 403, + 73, + 516, + 276 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1fae0fd2febc84147f08f0766bd24b1bf8a4061867ecb3c24659d3d15075fbda.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "vanced the understanding of adapter-based tuning more deeply and improved the adapters' architectures to improve parameter efficiency further. Adaptable adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) propose that adapters at different layers should have different activation functions. Thus they fit the rational activation functions to downstream tasks during parameter tuning. AdapterDrop (Rücklé et al., 2020) tries to reduce the number of adapters' parameter number by not inserting adapters on the lower layers. He et al. (2021) bridge connections among different PETuning approaches to form a unified framework and further propose to insert adapters in parallel to the modules of the Transformer block. Jie and Deng (2022) and Sung et al. (2022) propose to add encoding operations between the projection layers of an adapter and achieve better PETuning performances. The above empirical evidence implies that altering the adapters' architecture designs can help to improve the PETuning performances of adapters with even fewer tunable parameters. Predictably, such an optimal architecture is difficult to construct manually and may vary across different PTM backbones and tasks. Therefore, we propose to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the Learned Adapter framework to search for the optimal architecture of adapters automatically. We first construct a unified search space (Figure 2) that considers various design choices of adapters, including the activation functions, encoding operations, and how the adapters are connected to the PTM backbone. In terms of the specific" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 526, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "methodology for optimization on the search space, make a simple-yet-effective modification to the optimization method in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), which is better at identifying the proper components for adapters at different intermediate layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct extensive experiments to study the effectiveness of our Learned Adapter framework. The experimental results show that with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.068\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parameters, we can recover " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "99.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " finetuning performances on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmark. Moreover, the searched architecture outperforms the manually designed PETuning baselines while tuning fewer parameters. Figure 1 depicts the overall comparison between our Learned Adapter and the baselines. Furthermore, the learned architectures of adapters are transferable across tasks, which significantly strengthens the usefulness of the searched structures. Further experiments demonstrate that our newly proposed search space for adapters is valid." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 393, + 614 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 393, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 393, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adapter-based tuning. One of the most important research lines of PETuning is adapter-based tuning. Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) inserts adapter modules with bottleneck architecture between every consecutive Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) sublayers. AdapterFusion (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) only inserts sequential adapters after the feed-forward module. Adapter-based tuning methods have comparable results with model tuning when only tuning a fraction of the backbone model's parameter number. Due to their amazing results on PETuning, a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7421" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "branch of literature has investigated the architecture of adapters in search of further improvements. He et al. (2021) analyze a wide range of PETuning methods and show that they are essentially equivalent. They also propose the general architecture of PETuning. AdapterDrop (Rückle et al., 2020) investigates the efficiency of removing adapters from lower layers. Adaptive adapters (Moosavi et al., 2022) investigate the activation functions of adapters and propose to learn the activation functions of adapters via optimizing the parameters of rational functions as a part of the model parameters. Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) uses low-rank parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to compress adapters' tunable parameters. There is also work (Sung et al., 2022; Jie and Deng, 2022) trying to add different encoding operations, like self-attention operations and convolutions between the bottleneck structure of adapters, and achieve better performances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 346, + 289, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 346, + 289, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 346, + 289, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work complements this branch of literature by investigating: (a) whether and how the adapter architectures affect the PETuning performances, and whether different layers of PTMs need different adapter architectures; (b) whether we can obtain better adapter architectures via neural architecture search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Other PETuning methods Another main research line of PETuning is the prompt-based tuning that inserts some additional soft prompts into the hidden states instead of injecting new neural modules to PTMs. Prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) and P-tuning (Liu et al., 2022) insert a soft prompt to word embeddings only, and can achieve competitive results when applied to supersized PTMs. Prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021) insert prompts to every hidden layer of PTM. IDPG (Wu et al., 2022) uses the prompt generator with parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (Le et al., 2021) to generate a soft prompt for every instance. There are also some other popular PETuning methods, such as BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021) which only tunes the bias terms, LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) which optimizes low-rank decomposition matrices of the weights within self-attention layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neural architecture search In the early attempts, neural architecture search (NAS) requires massive computations, like thousands of GPU days (Zoph and Le, 2017; Zoph et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Recently, a particular group of one-shot NAS, led" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "by the seminal work DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) has attracted much attention. DARTS formulates the search space into a super-network that can adjust itself in a continuous space so that the network and architectural parameters can be optimized alternately (bi-level optimization) using gradient descent. A series of literature try to improve the performance and efficiency of DARTS, such as Xie et al. (2019), Chen et al. (2021), Chu et al. (2021), Nayman et al. (2019). SNAS (Xie et al., 2019) reformulate DARTS as a credit assignment task while maintaining the differentiability. Gao et al. (2020) penalize the entropy of the architecture parameters to encourage discretization on the hyper-network. P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021) analyze the issues during the DARTS bi-level optimization, and propose a series of modifications. PC-DARTS (Xu et al., 2021) reduces the memory cost during search by sampling a portion of the channels in supernetworks. FairDARTS (Chu et al., 2021) change the softmax operations in DARTS into sigmoid and introduce a zero-one loss to prune the architectural parameters. XNAS (Nayman et al., 2019) dynamically wipes out inferior architectures and enhances superior ones. NAS is widely applied in both computer vision and natural language processing, especially in knowledge distillation (Zhu, 2021a; Zhang et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 451, + 524, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 451, + 524, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 451, + 524, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work complements the literature by examining the optimization of DARTS on our search space and propose a new training procedure that does not require re-training after discretization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 517, + 493, + 529 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 517, + 493, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 517, + 493, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Search space of Learned Adapter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 539, + 489, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 539, + 489, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 539, + 489, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Pilot experiments and motivations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 556, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 556, + 524, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 556, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this subsection, we conduct a series of experiments on the RTE (Dagan et al., 2005) and MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) datasets to demonstrate the necessity of investigating the architecture of adapters. The baseline model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 556, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 556, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is RoBERTa-large model with an parallel adapter at the feed-forward module (FFN adapter) (He et al., 2021). The backbone model is frozen and we only tune the adapters on downstream tasks. The bottleneck dimension is 32 and the activation function is ReLU. The other experimental settings follow Appendix B. We now consider a series of simple modifications to the baseline model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Modifying the activation function We replace the activation functions of the adapters from ReLU to GeLU, SWISH or Tanh, while keeping the other" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7422" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 106, + 68, + 255, + 186 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 68, + 255, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 68, + 255, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 68, + 255, + 186 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelRTEMRPC
M79.1 (0.5)89.3 (0.4)
Mgelu79.3 (0.2)89.5 (0.3)
Mswish79.6 (0.3)89.2 (0.4)
Mtanh79.2 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)
Msa79.5 (0.3)89.6 (0.2)
Mconv79.5 (0.6)89.4 (0.5)
M attenu79.0 (0.4)89.1 (0.3)
Mblock79.6 (0.5)89.4 (0.3)
", + "image_path": "e32a20e16684ee3f90363be493b0d02b50b4c18ec716f7beb263d52b0d4a9a35.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 195, + 263, + 207 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 195, + 263, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 195, + 263, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Results of the pilot experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "settings unchanged. The three modified models are denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{gelu}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{swish}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{tanh}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adding encoding operations We add a self-attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) or a convolutional operation of kernel size 3 after the downprojection and before the activation function. The two variants of model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{sa}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{conv}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. Since extra operations introduce more parameters, we reduce the bottleneck dimension of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{sa}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{conv}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 24 to ensure fair comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alternative adapter placements Instead of inserting the adapter around the FFN module of the transformer block, we now consider: (1) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{\\text {attn }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " inserts the adapters at the attention modules (attn adapter); (2) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{\\text {block }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " inserts the adapters around the entire transformer block (block adapter). Note that the setting of block adapters is theoretically supported by the general framework of PETuning in He et al. (2021) but not considered by the previous work. In this work, we will demonstrate the usefulness of block adapters via experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 reports the experimental results of the above models. The evaluation metrics for the RTE and MRPC tasks are introduced by Appendix A.2. We can see that the four simple modifications to the baseline model, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{gelu}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{sa}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{conv}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{block}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", can slightly outperform " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", demonstrating that the adapter architectures are essential for adapter tuning, and it is promising to design better adapter architectures for better adapter tuning performances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The pilot experiments raise a vital research question: What are the optimal architectures for adapters? Obviously, such an optimal architecture will be different across tasks and PTM models and even across different intermediate layers of a PTM, making it impossible for manual designs. We are motivated to investigate the problem of optimizing the architectures of adapters via neural architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 337, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 337, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 337, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 483, + 108 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 483, + 108 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 483, + 108 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 General architecture of adapters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As depicted in Figure 2, we now construct the search space of the Learned Adapter. The adapter is a bottleneck architecture with bottleneck dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", consisting of down-projection layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{MLP}_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", an activation function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", an encoder layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Enc}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", another activation function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and finally a up-projection layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{MLP}_u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Formally, the hidden states " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " goes through the adapter and becomes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 229, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 229, + 525, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 229, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h _ {x} ^ {(A)} = \\operatorname {M L P} _ {u} \\left(g _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {E n c} \\left(g _ {1} \\left(\\operatorname {M L P} _ {d} \\left(h _ {x}\\right)\\right)\\right)\\right)\\right). \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "f076416d57c038b2ae00a526983f57504284f5c446518a1076d2c2b877e45a72.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following He et al. (2021), the hidden representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will also go through the backbone's certain encoding module BEnc, and the adapted hidden states will become " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_x' = \\mathrm{BEnc}(h_x) + h_x^{(A)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Following (Wu et al., 2022; Mahabadi et al., 2021; Le et al., 2021), we employ the parameterized hypercomplex multiplication (PHM) layer (Le et al., 2021) with parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to reduce the parameters of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{MLP}_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{MLP}_u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The PHM layer has a parameter complexity of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{O}(rd / n)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", reducing the parameters of the projection layers by at most " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{1}{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 392, + 430 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 392, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 392, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Search space" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now formally introduce the search space of our Learned Adapter framework. The whole search space contains three types of search cells as shown in Figure 2:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Activation Search Cell The Activation Search Cell is designated to choose the proper activation functions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from several candidates. Similar to So et al. (2019), the collection of candidate activation functions considered is: (a) ReLU (Agarap, 2018); (b) GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016); (c) SWISH (Ramachandran et al., 2017); (d) Tanh (Krizhevsky et al., 2012); (e) NulAct, which means no activation function and not to make changes to the input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Encoder Search Cell As is shown in Figure 2, different from (Wang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021b), we construct our encoder cell as a simple DAG with a single edge. Our collection of encoder operations consists of the following four groups: (a) 1-d convolutional layers, with stride 1, same padding, output filters equal to the input's dimension, and kernel size equal to 1, 3, 5, or 7 (denoted as conv_k, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 1, 3, 5, 7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). (b) Multi-head self-attention (MHA) layers (Vaswani et al., 2017), with head size equal to 2 or 8 (denoted as mha_k," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7423" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 123 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 2,8)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". (c) Skip connection (He et al., 2015), denoted as skip-connect. (d) The null encoding operation that multiplies zero tensors to the input (null).1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adapter Placement Search Cell This search cell is designated to decide the placement of the adapter in an intermediate transformer block. We consider three candidate placements shown in Figure 2:² (a) FFN adapter, that is, to insert the adapter in parallel to the feed-forward module; (b) Attn adapter, parallel to the self-attention module; (c) Block adapter inserts the adapter in parallel to the whole transformer block. This placement option is supported by the theoretical analysis of He et al. (2021) but has not been considered by the literature. In the experiments, we will show that including the above three choices for adapter placements are necessary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 290, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 290, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 290, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that the above three search cells are single-edge DAGs. Following Pham et al. (2018); Wang et al. (2020); Zhu et al. (2021b); Zhu (2021a); Zhu et al. (2021d), we consider the macro search space, that is, different adapter architectures are learned for different intermediate layers. Intuitively, the macro search space allows for idiosyncratic architectures for different intermediate layers, leading to easier model adaptation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 290, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the simple structures of search cell DAGs compared to the general NAS literature, our macro search space can result in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.38\\mathrm{e} + 90" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " combinations of different adapter architectures across different intermediate layers of the PTM backbones. Note that our search space contains the adapter architectures from Sung et al. (2022); Jie and Deng (2022) as special cases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 168, + 567 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 168, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 168, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Search Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 212, + 588 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 212, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 212, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Preliminaries on DARTS" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Assume there is a pre-defined space of operations denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{O}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where each element, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", denotes a neural network operation, like convolutional operation, self-attention, activation, etc. DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) initialize a hypernetwork in which each block is a search cell, that is, a fully connected directed acyclic graph (DAG) with N nodes. Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote a pair of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "nodes in the DAG. The core idea of DARTS is to use a weighted sum to include all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{O}|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " operations in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{O}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{i,j}(z_i) = \\sum_{o\\in \\mathcal{O}}a_{i,j}^o\\cdot o(z_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{i,j}^{o} = \\frac{\\exp\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}}{\\sum_{o^{\\prime}\\in\\mathcal{O}}\\exp\\alpha_{i,j}^{o^{\\prime}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the output of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th node, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the architectural parameters that represents the weight (or the importance score) of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in edge " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The output of a node is the sum of all input flow, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{j} = \\sum_{i < j}f_{i,j}(z_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The output of the entire cell is formed by summing the last two nodes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This design makes the entire framework differentiable to both layer weights and architectural parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{i,j}^{o}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " so that it is possible to perform architecture search in an end-to-end fashion. After the search process is completed, the discretization procedure extracts the final sub-network by selecting the best operation on each edge and dropping the lower-score operations. And the final sub-network will train on the original train set with randomly initialized parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 481, + 385 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 481, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 481, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Discussion on the search method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The standard optimization method for the above framework is the bi-level optimization proposed in DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a). However, there are recent works arguing that the single-level optimization method could also work for the DARTS framework. As pointed out by Bi et al. (2019) and Bi et al. (2020), bi-level optimization suffers considerable inaccuracy of gradient estimation and the potential instability can increase with the complexity of the search space. And Bi et al. (2020) conduct experiments to demonstrate that one-level optimization performs comparably with bi-level optimization but with better efficiency. Their experiments are conducted mainly on computer vision benchmarks like CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky et al., 2012). In this work, we would like to investigate which optimization method is better under our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that the original DARTS requires one to re-train the learned networks from scratch after the search procedure, which definitely introduce additional computation costs. In this work, we propose to gradually discretize the hyper-network and obtain a sub-network without re-training. We will refer to this method as gradually discretizing neural architecture search (GDNAS). We first train the complete hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs. Then we select a edge " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the search space to discretize (for example, the edge in the encoder cell). Dis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Choosing this operation means the model decides to discard an operation in the encoder, thus making the encoder a lighter architecture." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Through our initial experiments, we find no improvements to include other standard adapter placement options, like Houlsby et al. (2019); Pfeiffer et al. (2021)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7424" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cretization simply means selecting the operation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{*}^{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with highest architectural parameter, and drop the other operations. Now we have obtain a new reduced hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The discretized edge may cause the performance of the hyper-network to drop significantly, so we further finetune the hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to the advantage of not to retrain the learned network, GDNAS retains the knowledge in the hyper-network, and obtain the performance gains against the re-trained sub-network. This is analogous to the model pruning literature, where a network pruned from a larger one is usually better than the network trained from scratch (Liang et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 288, + 176, + 300 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 288, + 176, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 288, + 176, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: GDNAS" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: A hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", all edges " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; \nOutput: Set of selected operations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{o_e^*\\}_{e\\in \\mathcal{E}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nData: Training set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{train}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a batch of validation data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B_{val}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n1 Train hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the training set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{train}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs; \n2 for edge " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n3 Select the best operation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_e^* \\gets \\arg \\max_o o_e^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; \n4 Discretize edge " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by only keeping " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_e^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; \n5 Further train the hyper-network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{train}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 3, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 154, + 537 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 154, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 154, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 187, + 556 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 187, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 187, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Evaluation datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the performance of the methods on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) benchmarks. These benchmarks cover multiple tasks of paraphrase detection (MRPC, QQP), sentiment classification (SST-2), natural language inference (MNLI, RTE, QNLI), linguistic acceptability (CoLA)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 643, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 643, + 290, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 643, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the original test sets of the GLUE benchmark are not publicly available, we follow Zhang et al. (2020) and Mahabadi et al. (2021) to construct the train/dev/test splits as follows to ensure a fair comparison: (a) for datasets with fewer than 10k samples (RTE, MRPC, STS-B, CoLA), we divide" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the original validation set in half, using one half for validation and the other for testing. (b) for larger datasets, we split 1k samples from the training set as the development set, and use the original development set as the test set. The detailed statistics and evaluation metrics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7 of Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 425, + 191 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 425, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 425, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Experiment Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We run all the experiments on NVIDIA V100 32GB GPUs. We mainly evaluate our method on the GLUE benchmarks with the RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019c) backbone model. We also evaluate our framework with the DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019) backbones. We use the HugginFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) for implementing all the methods. Unless otherwise specified, GDNAS will adopt the bi-level optimization method of DARTS. For GDNAS' discretization procedure, we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{1} = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{2} = 0.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{1} = 20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{2} = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on low-resource datasets. And the batch size is set to 128 for dataset with more than 10k training samples, and 32 otherwise. For Learned Adapter, we set the bottleneck dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 32 and select at most one adapter at each transformer layer. For the PHM layers, we use the PyTorch implementation of Le et al. (2021) and set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 8. We run each task under 5 different random seeds and report the average performance and standard deviation. More details of the experimental settings are put in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 374, + 546 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 374, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 374, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 524, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 524, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 524, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare our Learned Adapter framework with the current SOTA baseline methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 524, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 524, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 524, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fine-tune The traditional fine-tuning methods that train all parameters in the PTM backbone." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adapter-based tuning For adapter-based tuning methods, we compare with: (1) Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019); (2) Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021); (3) Parallel Adapter proposed by (He et al., 2021) added on the FFN module; (4) LST (Sung et al., 2022). We re-implement Parallel Adapter with PHM projection layers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(n = 8)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt-based tuning For prompt-based tuning methods, we compare with (1) Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021), (2) P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021). The number of prompt tokens in these methods is set to 20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Devlin et al. (2019) and (Raffel et al., 2019), as a common practice, we do not experiment with the WNLI task (Levesque et al., 2011) due to its adversarial nature with respect to the training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7425" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 226 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 226 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodTunable \nParamsCoLA \n(mcc)SST-2 \n(acc)MRPC \n(acc-f1)QQP \n(acc-f1)STS-B \n(corr)MNLI \n(acc)QNLI \n(acc)RTE \n(acc)Avg
Baselines
RoBERTa-large355M65.395.491.590.391.889.894.580.187.3
Prompt Tuning21K54.6 (2.5)90.9 (0.5)74.8 (1.3)87.4 (0.5)90.1 (0.3)83.4 (0.2)92.4 (0.3)68.7 (1.9)80.3
P-tuning v2985K57.3 (2.1)92.3 (0.3)86.9 (1.2)88.1 (0.4)90.4 (0.1)87.3 (0.2)92.9 (0.4)77.2 (2.1)84.1
BitFit273K59.2 (0.9)94.1 (0.3)88.6 (0.8)88.5 (0.6)91.1 (0.3)87.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.2)78.6 (1.4)85.1
LoRA778K59.7 (1.4)93.6 (0.1)88.9 (0.7)88.3 (0.4)90.9 (0.2)87.9 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.8 (1.3)85.2
UNIPELT1.4M61.5 (1.7)93.6 (0.2)89.2 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)91.0 (0.5)87.5 (0.2)92.9 (0.1)79.1 (0.9)85.4
Adapter1.6M63.1 (1.4)93.8 (0.1)87.5 (0.8)88.7 (0.4)90.9 (0.4)88.5 (0.2)93.2 (0.1)78.9 (1.3)85.6
LST1.7M63.6 (1.5)93.9 (0.2)89.2 (0.7)88.7 (0.2)91.2 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.0 (0.2)79.2 (0.9)85.9
Parallel Adapters279K63.8 (1.5)94.2 (0.3)89.3 (0.5)88.9 (0.6)91.1 (0.4)88.3 (0.1)93.2 (0.1)79.1 (0.5)86.0
Compacter279K63.7 (0.9)94.2 (0.4)89.1 (0.7)88.6 (0.3)90.8 (0.2)88.2 (0.2)92.8 (0.2)78.7 (0.9)85.8
Our proposed methods
Learned Adapter294K64.3 (0.9)94.9 (0.3)89.8 (0.9)89.2 (0.3)91.3 (0.2)88.6 (0.2)93.5 (0.2)80.4 (1.3)86.5
", + "image_path": "9db34c8b22830f61000a941828abb47a4b048a351abcc63711e8fbfda348da84.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 270 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: The Overall comparison on the GLUE benchmark with RoBERTa-large backbone. We report mean and standard deviation of performance over 5 random seeds. Bold and Underline indicate the best and the second best results. The metric for each task is explained in Appendix A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Other PETuning methods We also compare: (1) BitFit (Ben-Zaken et al., 2021); (3) LoRA (Hu et al., 2021); (4) UNIPET (Mao et al., 2021) combines different types of PETuning methods in an automatic manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 440 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 440 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 440 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implement Aadpter, BitFit, and LoRA using the OpenDelta library. Other baselines are implemented using their open-sourced codes with their default settings. For a fair comparison, we do not use supplementary training like Wu et al. (2022) to enhance performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 251, + 462 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 251, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 251, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Results on the GLUE benchmark" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 290, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 290, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 290, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 shows the results on GLUE with RoBERTa-large. Our Learned Adapter framework, outperforms the previous PETuning methods and notably preserves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 290, + 548 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "99.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 290, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performance of the full-model fine-tuning method while only tuning 240K to 300K parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We can observe from Table 2 that: (a) Note that our Learned Adapter framework obtains further improvements by automatically designing adapter architectures for different intermediate layers of the PTM. (b) Note that although we add encoding operations in adapters, the total tunable parameters of the Learned Adapter in the macro setting are fewer than Compacter since our framework can automatically drop adapters on certain layers when necessary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 173, + 708 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 173, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 173, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.5 Further analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 290, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 290, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 290, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Explanations of the searched architectures To understand the searched adapter architectures under our Learned Adapter framework, we present the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 526, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks on Table 9 and 10 in Appendix D, respectively. From the learned adapter architectures, we can observe that: (a) The adapter architecture varies for different layers, showing that different layers require different adapter architectures. (b) On each task, Learned Adapter chooses the null encoding operation on 3-5 intermediate layers, meaning to drop the adapters on these layers. (c) Regarding the adapter placement choices, we find that on each task, all three placement candidates, FFN adapter, Attn adapter, and Block adapter, are selected. This observation demonstrates that introducing block adapters into our search space is necessary. (d) Most adapters select the convolutional operations, and multi-head self-attention operations tend to occur in adapters of deeper layers. (e) around half of the learned adapters choose the NullAct for the second activation function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Furthermore, we observe that there are adapters on the deeper transformer layers that requires no activation function but an encoder operation, demonstrating novel design patterns for adapters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Exploring the limit of parameter efficiency To explore the limit of parameter efficiency, we train the Learned Adapter, and Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021) with different rank parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n \\in \\{1,2,4,8,16,32\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that in the main experiments, we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " equal to 4. With larger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the parameters of adapters will increase proportionally. In Figure 3, we demonstrate the results of the RTE and SST-2 tasks. We can see that the advantages of our Learned Adapter framework become more prominent with lower tunable parameter budgets. The results demonstrate that our framework can" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 220, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 220, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 220, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://github.com/thunlp/OpenDelta" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7426" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 252, + 124 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 252, + 124 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 252, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 252, + 124 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SourceTarget
RTESST-2
RTE80.4 (1.3)94.6 (0.1)
SST-280.3 (1.4)94.9 (0.3)
", + "image_path": "23b89e96b27b0250df4bedf992a3b0ee4b206b473e4808da27b2272580bcc5e8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 180, + 261, + 252 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 289, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 289, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 289, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Architecture transfer from source datasets to target datasets. The target datasets are in the column names, and the source datasets are in the row names." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 180, + 261, + 252 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 180, + 261, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 180, + 261, + 252 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Search spaceRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
S80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
S180.1 (1.5)94.6 (0.3)
S279.8 (1.0)94.4 (0.4)
Parallel Adapter79.1 (0.5)94.2 (0.3)
", + "image_path": "2b75fd56e5e8eed64e768f3d6b6b25ffa0604a672d7881c74849e363406fc6d9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 289, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "effectively deliver the most proper architectures under the given parameter budgets and boost the performance of adapter-based tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Architectures' Transferability We now evaluate the transferability of the searched structures by the Learned Adapter. The RTE and SST-2 datasets are used as source and target datasets. We search the adapter architectures on the source dataset and train the searched architectures from scratch on the target task, and report the average and standard deviation of scores over 5 random seeds on table 3. We can see from Table 3 that the searched architectures are highly transferable. The transferred architectures can already achieve comparable or better performances than most baseline models (Table 2). The transferability guarantees the reusability of the searched adapter architectures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation studies on the search space We now conduct an ablation study of our search space by reducing our search space " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to a singleton step-by-step: (a) reduce the activation cells by only keeping the ReLU activation for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the NullAct for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; (b) further reduce the encoder cell to only include skip-connect " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; (c) further reduce the adapter placement cell to only include FFN adapter, and now the search space only contains Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021). Table 4 reports the search results on different search spaces, showing that that dropping any components of the whole search space results in performance losses. The results demonstrate that each search cell in our search space design is necessary and beneficial." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Working with other PTM backbones To verify the general applicability of our Learned Adapter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 525, + 216 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 289, + 285 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 289, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 289, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Experimental results for the ablation study of our Learned Adapter search space." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 525, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 525, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodTunable \nParamsRTE \n(acc)SST-2 \n(acc)
DeBERTa-large backbone
Fine-tuning406M82.1 (1.1)95.7 (0.2)
Adapters1.6M80.7 (1.3)93.8 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters279K81.5 (1.2)93.9 (0.3)
Learned Adapter245K82.0 (0.9)94.5 (0.3)
GPT2-large backbone
Fine-tuning774M79.5 (0.8)95.5 (0.1)
Adapters2.7M78.1 (0.9)93.9 (0.1)
Parallel Adapters462K78.5 (1.2)93.8 (0.1)
Learned Adapter482K79.1 (0.6)94.2 (0.2)
", + "image_path": "492bb68ba5e4f9aca5198790e701bbea0fc10296d4cf6d1ce841b875e018bfa9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 525, + 260 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 525, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 525, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Results on 2 GLUE tasks using DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large models as the backbone. Bold indicates the best PETuning results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 525, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 525, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 525, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "framework, we also conduct experiments on two other widely used PTM backbones, DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020), and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are shown in Table 5. Our Learned Adapter successfully outperforms the adapter-based tuning baselines on both pre-trained backbones. This result enhances the reliability of our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now validate our Learned Adapter framework on other pre-trained backbone: DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2020) and GPT2-large (Radford et al., 2019). The results are presented in Table 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 486, + 468 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 486, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 486, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.6 Discussions on the search method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Search efficiency of GDNAS We use the RTE task to demonstrate the search efficiency. Running the RTE task with DARTS takes 1.5h (70.5min for bi-level optimization for 25 epochs and 21.6min for re-training with 25 epochs). Since GDNAS does not require re-training, it requires 1.2h (73.3min for training the hyper-network for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k_{1} + 3*K_{2} = 26" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs). Our method consumes around three times the training time of Parallel Adapter (He et al., 2021), which is affordable compared to manually designing different architectures and running numerous evaluations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation study of search methods We now run Learned Adapter with GDNAS with single-level optimization, the original DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a) and ENAS (Cai et al., 2018). The results are shown in Table 6. The results demonstrate that our GDNAS are effective in discovering better adapter architectures. In addition, the results demonstrate that bi-level optimization obtains slightly better results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance on a NAS benchmark To further" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7427" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 76, + 290, + 194 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 76, + 290, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 76, + 290, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 76, + 290, + 194 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4c888ef99f557d4305707afded8b40fe105d7428728493201240466644a83bc3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 203, + 228, + 213 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 203, + 228, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 203, + 228, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) RTE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 299, + 76, + 459, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 76, + 459, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 76, + 459, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 76, + 459, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "35eb84d134582a80016aeb32d56e67c6d2686d7f0f9a4b02c35440ee420dc8b7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 362, + 203, + 400, + 213 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 362, + 203, + 400, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 362, + 203, + 400, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) SST-2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Performances under different PHM rank " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-axis represents the number of tunable parameters, and the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-axis represents the performance. The performance of full-model fine-tuning is in dotted horizontal line." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 269, + 280, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 269, + 280, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 269, + 280, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 269, + 280, + 346 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Search methodRTE (acc)SST-2 (acc)
GDNAS80.4 (1.3)94.9 (0.3)
GDNAS (single-level)80.2 (0.9)94.7 (0.2)
DARTS79.8 (1.2)94.5 (0.5)
ENAS80.3 (1.0)94.3 (0.4)
", + "image_path": "d155101c51176514482b192c7c39cc832f6357911de28b6b8e8710e05b35e8db.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 378 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Experimental results for the ablation study of the search methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "validate our GDNAS method, we conduct experiments on the widely studied neural architecture search benchmark dataset, CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky, 2009). The results are reported in Table 8 of Appendix C. Our GDNAS method achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.52\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 146, + 517 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 146, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 146, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 290, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 290, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 290, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose the Learned Adapter framework, which automatically optimizes the adapter architectures. First, we design a unified search space for adapters, taking into account the recent works of manual adapter designs. Second, in light of the issues in the DARTS method, we propose a novel GDNAS method that can deliver better adapter architectures and requires no re-training of the learned adapter architectures. We run extensive experiments and analyses on the GLUE benchmark, demonstrating that our Learned Adapter framework can achieve better tuning performances than the baselines while maintaining parameter efficiency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 711, + 130, + 724 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 711, + 130, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 711, + 130, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We showed that our proposed method can greatly improve the performance of parameter efficient tuning on diverse NLU tasks and three different pre" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "trained models (i.e., RoBERTa-large, DeBERTa-large and GPT2-large). However, we acknowledge the following limitations: (a) the more super-sized pretrained models with tens of billions of or more parameters were not studied due to limited computation resources. (b) Other tasks in natural language processing, like the text generation tasks, were also not considered. But our framework can be easily transferred to other backbone architectures and different types of tasks. It would be of interest to investigate if the superiority of our method holds for other backbone models and types of tasks. And we will explore it in future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 458, + 393, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 458, + 393, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 458, + 393, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The finding and proposed method aims to improve the adapter based tuning in terms of tuning parameters and performances. The used datasets are widely used in previous work and, to our knowledge, do not have any attached privacy or ethical issues." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 583, + 362, + 595 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 583, + 362, + 595 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 583, + 362, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 524, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abien Fred Agarap. 2018. Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu). ArXiv, abs/1803.08375." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 633, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 633, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 633, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elad Ben-Zaken, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. ArXiv, abs/2106.10199." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaifeng Bi, Changping Hu, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2019. Stabilizing DARTS with Amended Gradient Estimation on Architectural Parameters. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.11831." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaifeng Bi, Lingxi Xie, Xin Chen, Longhui Wei, and Qi Tian. 2020. Gold-nas: Gradual, one-level, differentiable. ArXiv, abs/2007.03331." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7428" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Han Cai, Tianyao Chen, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Jun Wang. 2018. Efficient architecture search by network transformation. In AAAI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 289, + 146 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 289, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 289, + 146 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Chen, Lingxi Xie, Jun Wu, and Qi Tian. 2021. Progressive darts: Bridging the optimization gap for nas in the wild. ArXiv, abs/1912.10952." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 289, + 210 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 289, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 289, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiangxiang Chu, Bo Zhang, Ruijun Xu, and Jixiang Li. 2021. Fairnas: Rethinking evaluation fairness of weight sharing neural architecture search. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12219-12228." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 289, + 251 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 289, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 289, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. pages 177-190." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 289, + 359 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 289, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 289, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 289, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 289, + 486 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 289, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 289, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiangxiang Gao, Wei Zhu, Jiasheng Gao, and Congrui Yin. 2023. F-pabee: Flexible-patience-based early exiting for single-label and multi-label text classification tasks. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 289, + 558 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 289, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 289, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuan Gao, Haoping Bai, Zequn Jie, Jiayi Ma, Kui Jia, and Wei Liu. 2020. Mtl-nas: Task-agnostic neural architecture search towards general-purpose multitask learning. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11540-11549." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 289, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Demi Guo, Alexander Rush, and Yoon Kim. 2021a. Parameter-efficient transfer learning with diff pruning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4884-4896, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 289, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 289, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 289, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhao Guo, Yuan Ni, Keqiang Wang, Wei Zhu, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Global attention decoder for Chinese spelling error correction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP* 2021, pages 1419–1428, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xu Han, Zhengyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Yuxian Gu, Xiao Liu, Yuqi Huo, Jiezhong Qiu, Liang Zhang, Wentao Han, Minlie Huang, Qin Jin, Yanyan Lan, Yang Liu," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyuan Liu, Zhiwu Lu, Xipeng Qiu, Ruihua Song, Jie Tang, Ji rong Wen, Jinhui Yuan, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2021. Pre-trained models: Past, present and future. ArXiv, abs/2106.07139." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 524, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2110.04366." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 524, + 224 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 524, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 524, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaiming He, X. Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. ArXiv, abs/2006.03654." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 310 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv: Learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 524, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 524, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 524, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 524, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 524, + 491 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 524, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 524, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shibo Jie and Zhifang Deng. 2022. Convolutional by-passes are better vision transformer adapters. ArXiv, abs/2207.07039." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 525 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A. Krizhevsky. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60:84 - 90." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 632 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tuan Le, Marco Bertolini, Frank No'e, and Djork-Arné Clevert. 2021. Parameterized hypercomplex graph neural networks for graph classification. In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 524, + 675 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 524, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 524, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 685, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 685, + 524, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 685, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and L. Morgenstern. 2011. The winograd schema challenge. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7429" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiepeng Li, Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Zheng Li, Yuan Ni, Peng Gao, Junchi Yan, and Guotong Xie. 2019. Pingan smart health and SJTU at COIN - shared task: utilizing pre-trained language models and commonsense knowledge in machine reading tasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Commonsense Inference in Natural Language Processing, pages 93-98, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 290, + 224 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 290, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 290, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tailin Liang, John Glossner, Lei Wang, Shaobo Shi, and Xiaotong Zhang. 2021. Pruning and Quantization for Deep Neural Network Acceleration: A Survey. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2101.09671." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 276 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenxi Liu, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, Wei Hua, Li-Jia Li, Li Fei-Fei, Alan Loddon Yuille, Jonathan Huang, and Kevin P. Murphy. 2018. Progressive neural architecture search. In ECCV." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 290, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. 2019a. Darts: Differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1806.09055." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. P-tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. ArXiv, abs/2110.07602." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 379, + 290, + 434 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 379, + 290, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 379, + 290, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Lam Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fin-tuning across scales and tasks. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 442, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 442, + 290, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 442, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019c. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, James Henderson, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. Compacter: Efficient low-rank hypercomplex adapter layers. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuning Mao, Lambert Mathias, Rui Hou, Amjad Almahairi, Hao Ma, Jiawei Han, Wen tau Yih, and Madian Khabsa. 2021. Unipelt: A unified framework for parameter-efficient language model tuning. ArXiv, abs/2110.07577." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Quentin Delfosse, Kristian Kersting, and Iryna Gurevych. 2022. Adaptable adapters. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Niv Nayman, Asaf Noy, T. Ridnik, Itamar Friedman, Rong Jin, and Lihi Zelnik-Manor. 2019. Xnas: Neural architecture search with expert advice. *ArXiv*, abs/1906.08031." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rückle, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. AdapterFusion: Non-destructive task composition for transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 487-503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 525, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hieu Pham, Melody Y. Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V. Le, and Jeff Dean. 2018. Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing. In ICML." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 270, + 525, + 304 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 270, + 525, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 270, + 525, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 311, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 311, + 525, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 311, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 525, + 418 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 525, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 525, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prajit Ramachandran, Barret Zoph, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Swish: a self-gated activation function. arXiv: Neural and Evolutionary Computing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 466, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 466, + 525, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 466, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Esteban Real, Alok Aggarwal, Yanping Huang, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andreas Rückle, Gregor Geigle, Max Glockner, Tilman Beck, Jonas Pfeiffer, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Adapterdrop: On the efficiency of adapters in transformers. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 580, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 580, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 580, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David R. So, Chen Liang, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. The evolved transformer. ArXiv, abs/1901.11117." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haixia Sun, Jin Xiao, Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Sheng Zhang, Xiaowei Xu, Li Hou, Jiao Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2020. Medical knowledge graph to enhance fraud, waste, and abuse detection on claim data: Model development and performance evaluation. JMIR Med Inform, 8(7):e17653." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 683, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 683, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 683, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2409-2421, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7430" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi-Lin Sung, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Lst: Ladder side-tuning for parameter and memory efficient transfer learning. ArXiv, abs/2206.06522." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 117, + 289, + 161 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 117, + 289, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 117, + 289, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 173, + 289, + 227 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 173, + 289, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 173, + 289, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In BlackboxNLP@EMNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 289, + 294 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 289, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 289, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yujing Wang, Yaming Yang, Yiren Chen, Jing Bai, Ce Zhang, Guinan Su, Xiaoyu Kou, Yunhai Tong, Mao Yang, and Lidong Zhou. 2020. Textnas: A neural architecture search space tailored for text representation. In AAAI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 289, + 438 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 289, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 289, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 289, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhuofeng Wu, Sinong Wang, Jiatao Gu, Rui Hou, Yuxiao Dong, V. G. Vinod Vydiswaran, and Hao Ma. 2022. Idpg: An instance-dependent prompt generation method. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 289, + 549 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 289, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 289, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2018. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 289, + 593 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 289, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 289, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sirui Xie, Hehui Zheng, Chunxiao Liu, and Liang Lin. 2019. Snas: Stochastic neural architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1812.09926." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 289, + 671 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 289, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 289, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuhui Xu, Lingxi Xie, Wenrui Dai, Xiaopeng Zhang, Xin Chen, Guo-Jun Qi, Hongkai Xiong, and Qi Tian. 2021. Partially-connected neural architecture search for reduced computational redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43:2953-2970." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 289, + 727 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 289, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 289, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arber Zela, Thomas Elsken, Tonmoy Saikia, Yassine Marrakchi, Thomas Brox, and Frank Hutter. 2019. Understanding and robustifying differentiable architecture search. ArXiv, abs/1909.09656." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Zhang, Felix Wu, Arzoo Katiyar, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Revisiting few-sample bert fine-tuning. *ArXiv*, abs/2006.05987." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Zhang, Wei Zhu, Jinfan Zhang, Peng Wang, Rize Jin, and Tae-Sun Chung. 2022. PCEE-BERT: Accelerating BERT inference via patient and confident early exiting. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 327-338, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhexi Zhang, Wei Zhu, Junchi Yan, Peng Gao, and Guotong Xie. 2021. Automatic student network search for knowledge distillation. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2446-2453. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 255 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongpeng Zhou, Minghao Yang, Jun Wang, and Wei Pan. 2019. Bayesnas: A bayesian approach for neural architecture search. *ArXiv*, abs/1905.04919." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 524, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu. 2021a. Autonlu: Architecture search for sentence and cross-sentence attention modeling with redesigned search space. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 10, pages 155-168. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 524, + 438 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 524, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 524, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu. 2021b. AutoRC: Improving BERT based relation classification models via architecture search. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: Student Research Workshop, pages 33-43, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 524, + 525 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 524, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 524, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu. 2021c. LeeBERT: Learned early exit for BERT with cross-level optimization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2968-2980, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 611 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu, Yilong He, Ling Chai, Yunxiao Fan, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, and Xiaoling Wang. 2021a. paht_nlp @ MEDIQA 2021: Multi-grained query focused multi-answer summarization. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 96-102, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 524, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 524, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 524, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Xiaoling Wang, and Guotong Xie. 2021b. Discovering better model architectures for medical query understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Industry Papers, pages 230-237, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu, Peng Wang, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2023. Acf: Aligned contrastive fin-tuning for language and vision tasks. In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7431" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 174 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CategoryDatasetsltrainlldevlltestl|y|TypeLabels
Single-sentenceSST-26634910008722sentimentpositive, negative
CoLA85515215222linguistic acceptabilityacceptable, not acceptable
Sentence-pairMNLI3917021000196473NLIentailment, neutral, contradiction
MRPC266810004082paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
QNLI103743100054632NLIentailment, not entailment
QQP3628461000404302paraphraseequivalent, not equivalent
RTE149010002772NLIentailment, not entailment
STS-B5750750751-semantic similarity-
", + "image_path": "884366fe05a52356957b5ae33b6becf9d6d14aabc1ac95c657f2281bc658a569.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 217 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: The dataset statistics of the GLUE benchmark tasks evaluated in this work. For MNLI task, the number of samples in the test set is summed by matched and mismatched samples. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 217 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{V}|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 525, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of classes for a classification task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 240, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 240, + 290, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 240, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guo Tong Xie. 2021c. Gaml-bert: Improving bert early exiting by gradient aligned mutual learning. In EMNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 284, + 291, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 284, + 291, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 284, + 291, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu, Xiaoling Wang, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2021d. Autotrans: Automating transformer design via reinforced architecture search. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing*, pages 169–182, Cham. Springer International Publishing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 350, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 350, + 291, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 350, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhu, Xiaofeng Zhou, Keqiang Wang, Xun Luo, Xiepeng Li, Yuan Ni, and Guotong Xie. 2019. PANLP at MEDIQA 2019: Pre-trained language models, transfer learning and knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task, pages 380-388, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 438, + 291, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 438, + 291, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 438, + 291, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Barret Zoph and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. *ArXiv*, abs/1611.01578." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 482, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 482, + 291, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 482, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 291, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 291, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 291, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8697-8710." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 291, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 291, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 291, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuhui Zuo, Wei Zhu, and Guoyong GUET Cai. 2022. Continually detection, rapidly react: Unseen rumors detection based on continual prompt-tuning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3029-3041, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 705, + 254, + 718 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 705, + 254, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 705, + 254, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Datasets and evaluation metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 161, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 161, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 161, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Dataset splits" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The detailed statistics of the GLUE benchmark is presented in Table 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 240, + 422, + 252 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 240, + 422, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 240, + 422, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Evaluation metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 526, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 526, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 526, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For MNLI, we report the average of the accuracy scores on the matched and mis-matched test set. For MRPC and QQP, we report acc-f1, which is the average of accuracy and F1 scores. For STS-B, we report corr, which denotes the average of the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. For CoLA, we report mcc, which is the Matthews correlation. For all other tasks, we report accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 506, + 391 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 506, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 506, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Appendix for experimental settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Details of experiments We run our methods and baseline method on the GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) following the previous works. All datasets are downloaded via the HuggingFace Datasets library. Since the test split of these tasks are invisible to the researchers, we randomly split off 1k samples from the training set as validation set for large datasets(QQP, QNLI, SST2, MNLI), and use the remaining as the training set, and use the original validation set as the test set. For other datasets, we randomly split the original validation set in half as the validation set and the test set, and use the original train set as our train set. The same dataset is split differently with different random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 526, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each experiment setting, we repeat the experiment with 5 seeds, and report the average score and standard deviation. In all experiments, the maximum sequence length is 128 for the tasks. We mainly use the RoBERTa-large model (355M parameters) as the backbone model, but we also adopt the GPT2-large and DeBERTa-large the backbone models for ablation studies. We freeze the pretrained parameters in all experiments except full-model finetuning. We use AdamW as the optimizer with a linear learning rate decay schedule and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the training steps for warm-up." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 475, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 475, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 475, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5https://huggingface.co/docs/datasets/index" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7432" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train the hyper-network on the train set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{train}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " following (Liu et al., 2019a). For training epochs, we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{1} = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{2} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{1} = 20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{2} = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on low-resource datasets. We will run the search procedure once for each task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After the hyper-network is fully discretized, instead of retraining from scratch, we further train the remained network for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs, and we evaluate the model on the dev set and save the model checkpoint every " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{eval}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " steps. The best checkpoint on the dev set is used to run predictions on the test set. We report the average scores on the test set and standard deviations across 5 random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Other hyper-parameters We do pilot experiments on SST-2 using learning rates in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{2\\mathrm{e} - 5,5\\mathrm{e} - 5," + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\mathrm{e} - 4,2\\mathrm{e} - 4\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , and find that 1e-4 performs the best. For fine-tuning, we try learning rates in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1\\mathrm{e} - 5,2\\mathrm{e} -" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5,5\\mathrm{e} - 5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and find that 2e-5 performs the best. The number of training epochs for the baselines is set as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on large datasets (SST-2, QNLI, QQP and MNLI), and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K = 20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on smaller datasets. We apply these hyper-parameters to all baselines, and no further hyperparameter-tuning are conducted. Therefore, the comparison is fair for all methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 289, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Experimental results on the CIFAR-10 task" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further validate that our GDNAS method can obtain better search performances than the DNAS baselines, we now conduct experiments in the general NAS setting. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we conduct neural architecture search on the CIFAR-10 dataset (Krizhevsky, 2009) based on the search space of DARTS. We keep all the search settings identical to DARTS. We first train the hyper-network with frozen architectural weights for 50 epochs. After selecting the operation on an edge, we tune the hyper-net for 8 epochs to let the modified hyper-network to adjust. Following DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a), we run the search and architecture selection phase with four random seeds and report both the best and average test errors of the obtained architectures. The results are reported in Table 8, which compares GDNAS with the DNAS baseline methods. Our GDNAS method achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.52\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " test error, which manageable search cost of 0.6 GPU days. The results of GDNAS is comparable to other method (like P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)) with more complex" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 357, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 357, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 357, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "procedures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 511, + 121 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 511, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 511, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Learned architectures on the GLUE tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 525, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present the learned adapter architectures on the RTE and SST-2 tasks. The learned adapter architecture are presented in Table 9, 10, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7433" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 116, + 479, + 264 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 116, + 479, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 116, + 479, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 116, + 479, + 264 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ArchitectureTest Error (%)Params (M)Search Cost (GPU days)Search Framework
NASNet-A (Zoph et al., 2017)2.653.32000RL
AmoebaNet (Real et al., 2018)3.343.23150evolution
ENAS (Pham et al., 2018)2.894.60.5RL
DARTS (Liu et al., 2019a)3.023.30.4DNAS
SNAS (Xie et al., 2018)2.852.81.5DNAS
BayesNAS (Zhou et al., 2019)2.813.40.2DNAS
P-DARTS (Chen et al., 2021)2.503.40.3DNAS
R-DARTS (Zela et al., 2019)2.95-1.6DNAS
GDNAS (ours)2.523.30.6DNAS
", + "image_path": "cd4019f243d4def77089d109ed9e07597fb5d2dd9abf2a52437e6cec266d2727.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 128, + 387, + 469, + 678 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 273, + 399, + 285 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 273, + 399, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 273, + 399, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: The search results on the CIFAR-10 task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 387, + 469, + 678 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 387, + 469, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 387, + 469, + 678 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1FFNelunull_ACTmha_8
2----
3----
4FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
5Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_2
6FFNgelu_newleaky_reluconv_3
7FFNnull_ACTtanhmha_2
8----
9Attnelureluconv_3
10----
11Attngelu_newreluconv_1
12Attngelu_newreluconv_3
13Blockreluleaky_reluconv_1
14Attnswishreluconv_3
15FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
16Blockleaky_relureluconv_5
17FFNleaky_relureluconv_1
18Attnleaky_relunull_ACTskip_connect
19FFNrelureluconv_3
20FFNgelu_newnull_ACTconv_3
21----
22Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
23Attntanhnull_ACTconv_3
24FFNtanhnull_ACTmha_2
", + "image_path": "9dc15f2edb474ad06adaa63b11678f46bf5e2c8e2f3c200a2e6874170c609b95.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 685, + 526, + 723 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 685, + 526, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 685, + 526, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: The learned adapter architectures on the RTE task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only \"-\", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7434" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 251, + 468, + 541 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 251, + 468, + 541 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 251, + 468, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 251, + 468, + 541 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Layer indexAdapter placementActivation g1Activation g2Encoder operation 1
1Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTconv_5
2----
3FFNelunull_ACTmha_2
4Attntanhnull_ACTmha_2
5Attnelunull_ACTskip_connect
6FFNgelu_newreluconv_5
7Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_3
8----
9Blockleaky_reluleaky_reluconv_5
10FFNrelureluconv_3
11Blocktanhnull_ACTmha_8
12----
13Blocktanhnull_ACTskip_connect
14----
15FFNswishswishconv_1
16Blockrelureluconv_1
17FFNreluswishconv_3
18FFNleaky_relureluconv_3
19Attngelu_newrelumha_8
20FFNswishrelumha_8
21Attnswishnull_ACTconv_3
22Attnelunull_ACTconv_3
23Attnnull_ACTnull_ACTmha_8
24Attnelunull_ACTmha_2
", + "image_path": "a8accd4dace60c26b827834b437e188704cbb9bcadbc55db360e044a80156f9b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 526, + 587 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 526, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: The learned adapter architectures on the SST-2 task when the PTM backbone is RoBERTa-large. If an adapter's architecture contains only \"-\", it means our Learned Adapter framework choose the null encoder operation, and equivalently, dropping this layer's adapter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7435" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 127, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 127, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 127, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 148, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 148, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 148, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 483, + 148, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 483, + 148, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 483, + 148, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 533, + 148, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 533, + 148, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 533, + 148, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 294, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 123, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 123, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 123, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 141, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 141, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 141, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 6.2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7436" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 236 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 6.2, Appendix C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Section 6.4, Section 6.5, Section 6.6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Section 6.2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7437" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_content_list.json b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f3286e072e3c11fe6b759dd7d93620e8eabb75d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2775 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 152, + 84, + 843, + 104 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yao Yao $^{1,2}$ , Zuchao Li $^{3,*}$ and Hai Zhao $^{1,2,*}$", + "bbox": [ + 319, + 112, + 685, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "$^{1}$ Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University", + "$^{2}$ MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence, AI Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + ], + "bbox": [ + 157, + 130, + 843, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ National Engineering Research Center for Multimedia Software, School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, P. R. China", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 164, + 815, + 196 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "yaoyao27@sjtu.edu.cn, zcli-charlie@whu.edu.cn,", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 198, + 776, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 366, + 215, + 635, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Researchers are witnessing knowledge-inspired natural language processing shifts the focus from entity-level to event-level, whereas event coreference resolution is one of the core challenges. This paper proposes a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution. On the basis of event but not entity as before, our model learns and integrates multiple representations from both event alone and event pair. For the former, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for more discriminative event representations. For the latter, we consider multiple similarity measures to capture the distinctions of event pairs. Our proposed model achieves new state-of-the-art on the ACE 2005 benchmark, demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed framework.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 533, + 258, + 548 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) may be generally conducted on the basis of entities. However, researchers are realizing that it is the form of \"event\" that can more comprehensively depict the knowledge clues in NLP tasks (Lee et al., 2012), among which coreference resolution is a fundamental task for either entity or event. Within-document event coreference resolution aims at finding all event mentions that refer to the same real-world event in a document (Lu and Ng, 2018).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 489, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1 shows an example of event coreference resolution from ACE 2005 (Walker et al., 2006) dataset. In the event coreference resolution, the trigger of an event mention usually refers to the word or phrase that describes the event with the most clarity and the event mention is typically the sentence containing the given trigger. As shown", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 736, + 487, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/703d0855533554261eecb8fb13597af4d7a1926106800e68b6eaed07bd1a63b8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
... attend his daughter 's wedding(event1) ceremony ... \n... to be taken(event2) home later in the afternoon \nto marry(event1) his eldest daughter ...
EventTypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
event1Life:MarryPositiveAssertedSpecificFuture
event2Movement:TransportPositiveOtherSpecificFuture
", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 261, + 882, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: An event coreference resolution example from ACE 2005 dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 381, + 882, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in the given example of Figure 1, the word taken triggers the Transport event. The words wedding and marry trigger the Marry event and these event mentions are coreferent because they both refer to the same real-world Marry event.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 435, + 882, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared with entity-level coreference resolution, event coreference resolution is more challenging despite their similarity (Lu and Ng, 2018). The main reasons are: (1) an event contains more complex syntactic information than an entity; (2) event coreference resolution suffers from error propagation since it has more upstream tasks; (3) there are far less triggers than entities in a document. Therefore, simply applying entity coreference resolution to event coreference resolution is unsatisfactory.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Many works utilize event linguistic features to address above challenges. In most cases, as shown in the above example, events that are coreferent have the same event features, such as type, polarity, and modality. Therefore, many studies (Lu and Ng, 2017b; Yu et al., 2020a; Lai et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) have suggested that incorporating event features into event coreference resolution is effective.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite of the developing trend of utilizing event features, the semantic similarity measures for event coreference resolution are less studied. Most of the works simply used element-wise multiplication to measure the similarity between two spans (Lee et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018, 2021) for entity-level", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author. † Equal contribution. This work was supported by the Key Projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1836222 and 61733011) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2042023kf0133).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 856, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13542", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13542-13556", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 778, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 700, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NLP tasks. However, incorporating multiple similarity measures interestingly shows helpful in many NLP tasks other than our concerned coreference resolution. For instance, He and Lin (2016) proposed a deep pairwise word interaction model to measure semantic textual similarity between two text pieces, which directly utilized multiple similarity measures for answer selection task and semantic textual similarity measuring task. Liu et al. (2020) designed a U-shaped rewritten network to incorporate multiple similarity measures for context rewriting task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared to entity-level coreference resolution, event-level coreference resolution focuses more on the cross-sentence semantic relationships, which are more complex and flexible. Therefore, to better address the event coreference resolution problem, we need to measure the relationships between events in more diverse and comprehensive ways. Inspired by this, in this paper, we propose a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution which integrates multiple measures from both event alone and event pair representations.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 279, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As far as we know, we are the first to introduce more comprehensive and distinguishing measures for event-level coreference resolution. Concretely, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for event alone representation and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair. By conducting experiments on ACE-2005 benchmark, our proposed model shows a significant improvement and achieves a new state-of-the-art F1 score of $61.71\\%$ in end-to-end settings and $92.32\\%$ in all gold settings. Results demonstrate that our model can effectively models the event along features and event pair features, thus surpassing our baseline model and previous state-of-the-art models by large margins.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 489, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 713, + 268, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entities serve as the fundamental basis for conducting various knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) tasks (Li et al., 2019, 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Stylianou and Vlahavas, 2021). Event coreference resolution, as an integral sub-task of natural language understanding, has gained increasing attention and finds applications in various domains. Most recent works of event coreference resolution can be categorized into two types: (1) joint models; (2) pipeline models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In 2012, Lee et al. (2012) presented a joint model", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for cross-document coreference resolution. The model employed linear regression to build entity and event clusters and jointly solved events and entities references by handling both nominal and verbal mentions. Araki and Mitamura (2015) jointly formulated the event trigger extraction and event coreference as a problem of structured prediction to solve the error propagation problem. The authors utilized segment-based decoding with the multiple-beam search for event trigger identification and combined it with the best-first clustering for within-document event coreference resolution. Lu and Ng (2017a) proposed a joint model of trigger detection, event coreference resolution, and event anaphoricity determination. The model employed a structured conditional random field with two types of factors: (1) unary factors; (2) binary and ternary factors. Yu et al. (2020a) presented a Pairwise Representation Learning scheme for cross-document and within-document event coreference problems. The scheme jointly encoded text snippets pair by forwarding concatenated sentences into a transformer encoder and employed structured argument features to argument the pairwise representation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Different from these works, in this paper, we adopt a more straightforward pipeline model conforming to the general idea of the task. Pipeline models mainly have two stages: event detection and event coreference resolution. Traditionally, pipeline models first detect event triggers, arguments, and event features and then apply coreference resolution to the predicted event mentions. Liu et al. (2016) first used bidirectional GRU to detect events and a logistic regression model to classify event features (i.e., realis). The model then employed the latent antecedent tree method to conduct coreference resolution. Choubey and Huang (2017) proposed a novel iterative approach for within-document and cross-document event coreference resolution. The method constructs event clusters gradually by exploiting inter-dependencies among event mentions in two stages. (Lai et al., 2021) employed OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and types. For other event features, the authors trained a simple classification model based on SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020). The model then used a context-dependent gated module (CDGM) to incorporate event features for event coreference resolution and a noisy training method to tackle the error propagation problem. Our work is closely related to (Lai et al., 2021). However, the method", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13543", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ologies are different. In our model, we found that a simple FFNN achieves a better result than the gating mechanism which questions the necessity for the CDGM gating method in event coreference resolution. We also innovatively introduce multiple similarity measures for event pair representation. With different ablation experiments and training settings, we verified that our proposed multiple measures learning model is effective and we hope our results can offer a new insight into not only event coreference resolution but also other fundamental tasks in NLP.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 306, + 218, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Formalization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 343, + 272, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our model focuses on within-document event coreference resolution. The input of our model is a document $D$ containing $n$ tokens. We then use a pre-tained language model to obtain the contextual embeddings of all the tokens in document $D$ . Let $X = (x_{1}, \\ldots, x_{n})$ denote the token embeddings. For every word $H_{i}$ , we use $S_{token}^{i}$ and $E_{token}^{i}$ to denote its subword tokens' start and end indices. Similarly, for the event $e_{i}$ , $S_{trigger}^{i}$ and $E_{trigger}^{i}$ denote its event trigger's start and end indices.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 373, + 489, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Model Overview", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 562, + 290, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on our formalization, we present a model flow for event coreference resolution. Our model first uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers following the practice of previous work in a given document and classify its event type. Then a novel prompt-based event features prediction model generates every event alone features.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 592, + 489, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After obtaining the predicted event triggers and event alone features, we use a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution. The model overview is shown in Figure 2. Our model consists of two parts: single mention encoding and multiple measures pair encoding. Firstly, the single mention encoding is employed to construct event-level representation for the given document $D$ . Secondly, the multiple measures pair encoding aims at building event pair representations combined with multi-similarity and event alone features. Finally, we use a scoring layer to calculate the antecedent scores for every event pair.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Trigger Detection and Event Alone Feature Classification", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 83, + 843, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our model uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers and their types and designs a model to predict other event alone features. The overview of event alone features prediction model can be seen in Figure 3. Specifically, we first insert special tokens $\\langle t\\rangle$ and $\\langle /t\\rangle$ around the event trigger to highlight the target event. By doing so, we can transfer the original event feature prediction problem into a traditional text classification problem. To be more specific, we first use BERT-large-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) to build contextualized representations $h^r$ for the input sentence $X$ , which can be defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 124, + 884, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh ^ {r} = \\operatorname {E n c o d e r} (X)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 623, + 343, + 764, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then utilize MLP to classify each sentence. The probability distribution of event feature labels is calculated by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 369, + 880, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nM ^ {r} = \\operatorname {P o o l e r} \\left(h ^ {r}\\right))\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 623, + 426, + 766, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP (y | X) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\mathbf {M L P} \\left(M ^ {r}\\right)\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 451, + 816, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $y \\in Y$ and $Y$ denotes a set of pre-defined event linguistic feature labels. We choose the label with the highest probability score among all the event feature labels.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 475, + 880, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Event-aware Representation Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 550, + 855, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our model integrates multiple linguistics-motivated and attention-based feature learning for event alone representations and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 570, + 882, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.1 Event Alone Representation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 643, + 789, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Event alone representation includes linguistic-aware properties integration and linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature for an event. For linguistic-aware properties in our consideration for this work, type, polarity, modality, genericity and tense, which can be seen in Figure 1, are included. Their properties are used as linguistic-aware event alone features in our model. For feature encoding, we employed the same embedding method used in Lai et al. (2021). Given event $e_i$ feature $k$ , our model use a simple embedding layer to obtain its feature representation $F_i^k$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 884, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides, considering data-driven feature learning, we introduce a linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature extraction module. Inspired by Dobrovolskii (2021), we proposed an attention based", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13544", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/309e2291623df1964615ba25b65e8aac2fcf2041ac59f40345d1d5fb58233887.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Overview of multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 91, + 884, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "method to encode event mentions. We calculate event representations as weighted sum of their triggers' token embeddings, instead of simply averaging them (Lai et al., 2021). To be more specific, for a given word $H_{i}$ , its word-level representation $h_i$ is calculated as where $W_{j}$ is a learnable weight:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 444, + 489, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh _ {i} = \\sum_ {j = S _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} W _ {j} \\cdot x _ {j}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 555, + 381, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then use the same attention strategy to compute event representation $e_i$ where $W_j'$ is a learnable weight:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 489, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ne _ {i} = \\sum_ {j = S _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} W _ {j} ^ {\\prime} \\cdot h _ {j}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 682, + 384, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By using this attention based encoder, our model can generate more accurate event representations with a better focus on important tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 743, + 487, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.2 Event Pair Representation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 802, + 381, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After obtaining event alone representations, we design a novel multiple similarity measures for measuring the coreference relationship. Given event representation $e_i$ and $e_j$ , we use the following similarity measures to calculate their event pair features:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Linear Similarity The linear similarity between $e_i$ and $e_j$ is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 444, + 880, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)} = W _ {l i n} ^ {T} [ e _ {i}; e _ {j} ] + b\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 594, + 489, + 800, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $W_{lin}$ is a vector of trainable weights, $b$ is a bias parameter, and [;] is vector concatenation operation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 524, + 880, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cosine Similarity The cosine similarity between $e_i$ and $e_j$ is calculated by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 573, + 880, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)} = \\frac {e _ {i} \\cdot e _ {j}}{\\| e _ {i} \\| _ {2} \\cdot \\| e _ {j} \\| _ {2}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 601, + 617, + 789, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\| \\cdot \\| _2$ denotes L2 norm.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 727, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Element-wise Similarity The element-wise similarity between $e_i$ and $e_j$ is calculated by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 882, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} = e _ {i} \\odot e _ {j}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 623, + 722, + 764, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\odot$ denotes element-wise multiplication.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 850, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, we concatenate all three measures mentioned with event representation to build event pair representation $e_{ij}$ which is calculated by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ne _ {i j} = [ e _ {i}; e _ {j}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 835, + 843, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similarity Fusion Layer After obtaining the pair representation, our model then employed a similarity fusion layer to construct the multi-similarity", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13545", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f8cace487bcb05722806ca751fe3826e15bd70d1f305ae6f71d69721d9dd7b02.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Overview of event alone features prediction model" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 87, + 489, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "based event pair representation $s_{ij}$ , which is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 489, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns _ {i j} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {e} (e _ {i j})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 549, + 374, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_e$ is a feed forward neural network mapping from $\\mathbb{R}^{3\\times d_1 + 2}\\to \\mathbb{R}^l$ . By fusing event mentions and similarity measures all together, we are able to generate the event representation which is cleaner and contains richer information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 574, + 487, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Feature Filtering Layer Similar to event pair encoding, for each event linguistic feature $k$ , we too construct multi-similarity based feature pair representation $\\hat{f}_{ij}^{k}$ by:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 656, + 489, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nF _ {i j} ^ {k} = [ F _ {i} ^ {k}; F _ {j} ^ {k}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 737, + 458, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {i j} ^ {k} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {f} (F _ {i j} ^ {k})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 775, + 379, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_f$ is a feed forward neural network mapping from $\\mathbb{R}^{3\\times d_2 + 2}\\to \\mathbb{R}^l$", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 804, + 487, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Whereas predicted features can be noisy and hence cause the error propagation problem. To address this problem, we propose a feature filtering layer to clean the noisy features and focus on more important event alone features. For each feature", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$k$ , we employed a feed forward neural network to filter the features.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {i j} ^ {k} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {c} ^ {k} (\\hat {f} _ {i j} ^ {k})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 616, + 124, + 771, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By doing this, we are able to obtain clean event pair feature representations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 158, + 880, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.3 Coreference Scoring Layer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 199, + 781, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then concatenate feature pair representations and event pair representation to get the multi-similarity based event-feature pair representation $S_{ij}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 218, + 880, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {i j} = [ s _ {i j}; f _ {i j} ^ {1}; f _ {i j} ^ {2}; \\dots ; f _ {i j} ^ {m} ]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 594, + 281, + 794, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, we employ a coreference scoring layer to obtain antecedent scores between event $i$ and event $j$ where $\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_s$ maps from $\\mathbb{R}^{(m + 1)\\times l}\\to \\mathbb{R}$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 306, + 880, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {s} (S _ {i j})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 621, + 367, + 769, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 395, + 655, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 420, + 616, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2098a282db037236930ffdece6cd5da091e9ba7037092916037b6a22afd34824.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TrainDevTest
#Docs5293040
#Sent19204901676
#Event3342327293
", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 449, + 818, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our model on ACE 2005 English dataset (Walker et al., 2006). ACE 2005 dataset adopts a strict notion of event coreference (Song et al., 2015). Specifically, two event mentions are coreferential if and only if \"they had the same agent(s), patient(s), time, and location. We adopt the same split as Chen et al. (2015) and the detailed dataset statistics are shown in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 576, + 880, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Model Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 715, + 655, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to have a fair comparison with Lai et al. (2021), we too use SpanBERT-base-cased (Joshi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 736, + 882, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e10047623ecef9615ab57d47339f2ee958f18d9e2683548adcce5f2593905679.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: ACE 2005 dataset statistics (# denotes numbers)" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ParametersValue
Epochs150
Batch size16
Task learning rate0.0001
Transformer learning rate5e-5
Hidden size500
", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 788, + 836, + 890 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Training parameters for ACE 2005", + "bbox": [ + 546, + 898, + 843, + 914 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13546", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3cbf8fc020b6622c1d59a8d2994fd68d7ee327eb98478429fbafc0ae1d2aa687.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Event Alone Features (k)Noisy Probability (pk)
Type0.00
Polarity0.00
Modality0.15
Genericity0.15
Tense0.25
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 80, + 480, + 173 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: noisy training probability for different features", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 181, + 485, + 196 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2020) as the base Transformer encoder. We use AVG and CoNLL as our evaluation metrics. The AVG is the average F-score of four metrics (Lu and Ng, 2018): MUC, $\\mathbf{B}^3$ , $\\mathrm{CEAF}_e$ and BLANC. The CoNLL score is the average of first three metrics. All models are trained for 150 epochs. The detailed training parameters can be seen in Table 2", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 223, + 487, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to Lai et al. (2021), simply training the model using predicted event alone features may hurt the performance since the prediction of test set contains more errors than that of the train set. Inspired by Lai et al. (2021), we too introduce the noisy training method. Specifically, for every predicted event alone features $k$ , we randomly assign a new label with a probability of $p_k$ . According to Lai et al. (2021), the probability $p_k$ varies inversely with the discrepancy between the train and test accuracies. Our noisy training probability for different features can be seen in Table 3. The probability value is positively correlated with the accuracy of the feature prediction. The main idea behind this is that for event feature that is more prone to prediction errors, we need a higher replacement probability to eliminate the noise propagation problem. By using the noisy training method, our model can be more sensitive to noisy features and hence mitigate the error propagation problem.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 337, + 489, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Results and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 339, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To probe deeper into the effect of different stages in our pipeline model. We employ our model in three settings: end-to-end, gold triggers, and all gold. In end-to-end, we use predicted triggers and predicted features. In gold trigger setting, given gold triggers we predict event features and then apply event coreference. In all gold setting, we utilize gold triggers and gold features to have a better understanding on coreference stage.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 487, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3.1 Event Feature Prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 850, + 371, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The feature prediction model formulates the event feature prediction problem as a traditional text classification problem by using special tokens to high-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "light event triggers. The details can be seen in the appendix. Compared with the joint classification model proposed used by Lai et al. (2021), our model achieves obvious improvement on most event features. According to Lin et al. (2020), the event detection type-F1 score of OneIE on ACE 2005 test set is 74.7. Table 4 shows the accuracy of different event features.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Table 4, we can see that comparing to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), our model has a significant advantage on most of the features. We speculate that by introducing special tokens, we are able to maintain more semantic information than simply using the average of the trigger's token embeddings as the classification input.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 214, + 884, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3.2 End-to-end", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 337, + 660, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The end-to-end event coreference result can be seen in Table 5. We use OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and their types. We then formulate the event feature classification problem as a traditional text classification problem.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 882, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the Table 5, we can see that our model achieves the state of the art on ACE 2005 dataset. Although Peng et al. (2016) used cross-validation to utilize more training data, our model still shows a great improvement. Also, as a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM (Lai et al., 2021) by more than 2 points on AVG, which shows the effectiveness of our proposed pipeline model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 882, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3.3 Gold Triggers and Predicted Features", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 865, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to have a thorough comparison with the CDGM model, we also perform our model on ground-truth triggers and predicted event alone features. The results are shown in Table 6. We achieve an AVG score of 86.63 which significantly improve the CDGM performance by more than 2.5 points. The result sufficiently proves the advantage of our proposed event alone feature classification and multi-similarity coreference model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 598, + 880, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3.4 All Gold", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 636, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To have a better focus on the event coreference stage of our model, we conduct our experiments on all gold setting in which we use ground-truth triggers and ground-truth features. Table 7 shows the overall result. In all gold setting, we use two training strategy: noisy training and clean training. In clean training strategy, all event features are not randomly replaced. We can see that by using original clean features, we improve the noisy training", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13547", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4a4681f261b3ebd79d8b2f48914516777e0a84c900f72d2ddd52a0b4c8fba143.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsEvent Features
TypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
CDGM(2021)train99.999.999.999.998.4
test95.398.888.487.276.3
Ourstrain99.999.999.499.999.7
test95.398.689.290.377.6
", + "bbox": [ + 243, + 80, + 752, + 173 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fe834b4fff7a27d9ddba0adf1c6cefd780e9cdda2ab1779bfed359af327c6357.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Results of event feature prediction on ACE-2005" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
cross-validation
SSED(2016)+Supervised55.2352.50
+MSEP53.8051.40
test data
CDGM(2021)+Simple57.5554.79
(all features)+CDGM58.9956.32
+Simple +Noise60.4357.85
+CDGM +Noise62.0759.76
Ours+Noise64.5662.11
(all features)
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 206, + 489, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c4a4ef771d71529fe671b0d1a464f197bf395f3496470f59a4dd2c0001ce9884.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: End-to-end results on ACE 2005" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
PAIREDRL(2020b)84.65-
MSEP(2016)80.3782.90
CDGM(2021)+Simple75.3274.94
(all features)+CDGM +Noise84.7683.95
Ours+Noise86.7886.63
(all features)
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 409, + 485, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "strategy by near 5.5 points. As a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM without noisy training method and reaches the state-of-the-art of 92.32. Such significant improvements demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating multiple similarity measures and attention based encoding.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 554, + 489, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/69985822af4bf20291725fc6e6dbbe6062bf550232ed6dea51f8b4f7c6e621bd.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Gold triggers results on ACE 2005" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
CDGM(2021)+Simple85.7585.40
(all features)+CDGM87.9088.30
+CDGM +Noise85.4085.38
Ours+Noise87.1086.83
(all features)-91.9792.32
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 661, + 489, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Further Exploration", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 807, + 326, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Gated or Not?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 273, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to Lai et al. (2021), they propose Context Dependent Gated Module (CDGM) to obtain the event features. CDGM selectively distill input event features using a gating mecha", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "nism. Therefore, to have a thorough comparison between CDGM and our proposed feature filtering layer, we introduce the CDGM method into our model. More specifically, after calculating the multi-similarity based feature pair representations, we employ CDGM instead of feature filtering layer to clean the event feature pair. We conduct experiments on all three settings and Table 8 shows the comparison result.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 211, + 884, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3f32e9188b112f49cad3c8965f8ce0e973ab6fe06d4d55a30ebea6e15efe59b2.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: All gold results on ACE 2005" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SettingsAVGΔ
CDGMOurs
End-to-end61.3862.11+0.73
Gold triggers85.7286.63+0.91
All gold92.0592.32+0.27
", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 367, + 842, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Results of using gated strategy and simple strategy with different settings on ACE 2005", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 453, + 880, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Table 8, we can see that feature filtering layer outperforms the CDGM in all three settings. The largest improvement is made in gold trigger setting which reaches 0.91 points. Whereas, in all gold scenario, CDGM reaches a similar result to our model with a relatively small margin of 0.27 points. We speculate that in all gold setting, the ground-truth event features are already clean and hence filtering features exerts limited influence on the overall performance. When using ground truth triggers, all event features are predicted and therefore containing errors. In this case, using feature filtering layer can evolve our model to its greatest potential. In conclusion, the result shows that, compared to CDGM, simply using a feed forward neural network can reserve more information and hence achieves obvious improvement.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 500, + 882, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Attention or Not?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 694, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To have a better analysis on our proposed attention based encoder, we conduct ablation experiments. In the experiments, all models simply concatenate noisy feature pair representation together without any filtering operation (e.g., CDGM; feature filtering layer). We denote this concatenate strategy as simple. To be more specific, We treat the CDGM", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13548", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "model (Lai et al., 2021) without using cleaned features as the baseline which treats event representations as the average of their triggers' token embedding. To have a fair comparison, we also use noisy feature representations by stripping the feature filtering layer and multi-similarity measures off our model and simply keep the attention based encoder. The overall results are shown in Table 9.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7480a0ab16f01db0bb5e7a00037e6f6996ee3b561e6e9a95509607539855ee7c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsAVG
baseline
CDGM(2021)+ Average + Simple85.40
Ours+ Attention + Simple90.45
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 222, + 450, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All models use the same event linguistic features. From Table 9, we can conclude that our model yields an absolute improvement of 5.05 points in AVG score. The great performance sufficiently proves the superiority of our attention based encoder. By introducing learnable weights to calculate the word-level and event-level representations, we believe that it can help our model focus on more critical tokens instead of simply averaging them. In a nutshell, our model acquires the ability to grab the core information for the given event through using an attention based encoder and hence achieves a better result.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 384, + 489, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.3 Multi-similarity or Not?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 351, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also conduct ablation experiments for the purpose of understanding the impact of different similarity measures. In the experiment, we deprive our model of multiple similarity measures pair encoder and similarity fusion layer and return to the original method which simply uses element-wise similarity to capture the relevance between two events. We treat the deprived model as the baseline. We then introducing the similarity fusion layer to generate more similarity-aware event pair representations. On the basis of fusion layer, we respectively add cosine similarity and linear similarity to better analyse the different influence they exert on the overall results. Finally, we train our full model on multiple similarity measures. The detailed results can be seen in Table 10.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We can see clearly that our model outperforms the baseline model significantly by 1.82 points on", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1444559bfc774d386728ee99167326720311b0d825aa4dfe1b3cf223ce9ce071.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Results of using attention based encoder with all gold settings on ACE 2005" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsAVGΔ
-wo fusion layer
Baselineelement-wise similarity)90.50-
-wo fusion layer
Element-wise similarity90.92+0.42
Cosine Similarity89.20-1.30
Linear Similarity90.72+0.22
Element-wise + Cosine Similarity91.07+0.57
Element-wise + Linear Similarity91.73+1.23
Multi-similarity92.32+1.82
", + "bbox": [ + 536, + 80, + 857, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the AVG score. When combined with element-wise similarity, cosine similarity achieves a relatively small improvement compared to linear similarity and even suffers a minor decrease when used alone. We speculate that the main reason is that cosine similarity is more sensitive to the angle between two vectors instead of their lengths. Whereas, with the help of trainable weights, linear similarity can better capture the relevance between events by learning different perspectives of vectors. Nevertheless, our model still shows a great improvement when using all three similarity measures indicating that different similarity measures specialist in different aspects. As a result, we believe that using multiple similarity measures can help the model better capture the similarity between two events from more diverse and comprehensive aspects.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 279, + 884, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.4 Noisy or Not?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 663, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To better analyze the usefulness of the noisy training method under different circumstances, we compare the noisy trained models and clean trained models under all three settings. The overall results are shown in Table 11.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 588, + 882, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c9887ae85e5cb8ab4bca2db448680481f1e8436eae519f1185cab6bc60d93609.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: Results of using different similarity measures with all gold setting on ACE 2005" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SettingsAVGΔ
CleanNoisy
End-to-end57.0062.11+5.11
Gold triggers78.8786.63+7.76
All gold92.3286.83-5.49
", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 677, + 852, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: Results of using noisy features and clean features with different settings on ACE 2005", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 880, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We denote the models which replace the event feature labels randomly as noisy and clean for models which do not. Compared to the end-to-end setting, the model under the gold trigger setting achieves a much more apparent improvement when using the noisy training method. We presume the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13549", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "main reason is that since the event trigger detection is far from perfect, the predicted event features would be more accurate when given the ground-truth triggers. With fewer error propagation problems, our model is able to uncover the deeper connections between event features. Similar to Lai et al. (2021), when using the all gold setting, however, our model suffers a decline of 5.49 points on the AVG score. Since all event features are clean in the all gold setting, our model do not need noisy training to tackle error event features and on the contrary, simply using clean features can already boost the performance to the most degree.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.5 Performance on Different Length", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 304, + 421, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By introducing attention based encoder and multiple measures pair encoder, we believe that we can accredit the great improvement of our model to better performances in long documents. Compared to CDGM, our attention based encoder can better construct word-level representation which can be less influenced by the distance and multiple similarity measures pair encoder further addresses the long-document problem.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 489, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c84616386ec13108939e17631f68c656e68e01524d51d99e124fff2e2cff0b1a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Performance of different document length in ACE 2005 test set with end-to-end and all gold settings." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 479, + 497, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To verify our hypothesis, we evaluate our model and the CDGM model respectively on the ACE 2005 test set for different document length ranges and the results are shown in Figure 4. According to the curves in the figure, in the all gold setting, it is obvious that our model do not suffer a significant decline as the document lengths grow. Although the CDGM model achieves a similar result with our model when the document lengths range be", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tween 1050 and 1199, our model still shows a great advantage over most document length ranges. Especially, when document length range grows from 300 to 900, the CDGM suffers a drastic decline while our model's performance remains at a high level. In the end-to-end setting, our model shows a more obvious advantage in the long documents over the CDGM model indicating that our method can effectively cope with the long documents in different settings.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 260, + 640, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution for the first time, as far as we know. By incorporating multiple event features and similarity measures, we are capable of calculating antecedent scores more comprehensively from different aspects. We unleash the potential of employing multiple similarity measures and filtering event features through various ablation experiments and proved that our method can effectively address the long sentence dependency problem. Our model achieves an evident and significant improvement on the ACE 2005 benchmark compared to current state-of-the-art models. In the future work, we aim at exploring the potential of incorporating multiple similarity metrics into different tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 287, + 884, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Limitation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 636, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations. Compared to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), introducing multiple metrics to capture flexible cross-sentence event relationships would cause extra computation cost and slightly slow our training. The training parameters of different models can be seen in Table 12. We deprive our model of multiple similarity metrics and denote it as the baseline model. We can see that our model increases $7\\%$ parameters compared to CDGM and $0.009\\%$ compared to the baseline model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 587, + 882, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/de3e71b278d7cff93c0c59397aa0ceb92cc2655ac5ff065d73fa4d8165b1c67b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Models#Training Parameters
Baseline110.51M
CDGM(2021)108.57M
Ours110.52M
", + "bbox": [ + 542, + 776, + 848, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: The number of training parameters of different models (# denotes numbers)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 880, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13550", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jun Araki and Teruko Mitamura. 2015. Joint event trigger identification and event coreference resolution with structured perceptron. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2074-2080, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yubo Chen, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, Daojian Zeng, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multipooling convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 167-176, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Prafulla Kumar Choubey and Ruihong Huang. 2017. Event coreference resolution by iteratively unfolding inter-dependencies among events. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2124-2133, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Vladimir Dobrovolskii. 2021. Word-level coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7670-7675, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hua He and Jimmy Lin. 2016. Pairwise word interaction modeling with deep neural networks for semantic similarity measurement. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 937-948, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. SpanBERT: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77.", + "Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, Trung Bui, Quan Hung Tran, Franck Dernoncourt, and Walter Chang. 2021. A context-dependent gated module for incorporating symbolic semantics into event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3491-3499, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Heeyoung Lee, Marta Recasens, Angel Chang, Mihai Surdeanu, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Joint entity and event coreference resolution across documents. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 489-500, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Jiaxun Cai, Zhuosheng Zhang, Hai Zhao, Gongshen Liu, Linlin Li, and Luo Si. 2018. A unified syntax-aware framework for semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2401-2411. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Hai Zhao, Yiqing Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2019. Dependency or span, end-to-end uniform semantic role labeling. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 6730-6737. AAAI Press.", + "Zuchao Li, Kevin Parnow, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Incorporating rich syntax information in grammatical error correction. Inf. Process. Manag., 59(3):102891.", + "Zuchao Li, Hai Zhao, Shexia He, and Jiaxun Cai. 2021. Syntax role for neural semantic role labeling. Comput. Linguistics, 47(3):529-574.", + "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, Bin Zhou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. Incomplete utterance rewriting as semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2846-2857, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhengzhong Liu, Jun Araki, Teruko Mitamura, and Edward H. Hovy. 2016. CMU-LTI at KBP 2016 event" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13551", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "nugget track. In Proceedings of the 2016 Text Analysis Conference, TAC 2016, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 14-15, 2016. NIST.", + "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017a. Joint learning for event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 90-101, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017b. Learning antecedent structures for event coreference resolution. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, ICMLA 2017, Cancun, Mexico, December 18-21, 2017, pages 113-118. IEEE.", + "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2018. Event coreference resolution: A survey of two decades of research. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, pages 5479-5486. ijcai.org.", + "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jialong Tang, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2022. End-to-end neural event coreference resolution. Artif. Intell., 303:103632.", + "Haoruo Peng, Yangqiu Song, and Dan Roth. 2016. Event detection and co-reference with minimal supervision. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 392-402, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhiyi Song, Ann Bies, Stephanie Strassel, Tom Riese, Justin Mott, Joe Ellis, Jonathan Wright, Seth Kulick, Neville Ryant, and Xiaoyi Ma. 2015. From light to rich ERE: Annotation of entities, relations, and events. In Proceedings of the The 3rd Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation, pages 89-98, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Nikolaos Stylianou and Ioannis P. Vlahavas. 2021. A neural entity coreference resolution review. Expert Syst. Appl., 168:114466.", + "Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 57:45.", + "Yifei Yang, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Nested named entity recognition as corpus aware holistic structure parsing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2022, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 12-17, 2022, pages 2472-2482. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020a. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12808." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020b. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. CoRR, abs/2010.12808.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13552", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 238, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Full Experiment Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 109, + 356, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report the all four metrics of our experiment results in Table 13.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 130, + 487, + 161 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 172, + 282, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to show that adding extra feature filtering FFNN layer is indeed effective instead of simply using additional parameters to help the model fit, we deprive our model of the feature filtering layer and increase the number of training parameters to the same size as before (110.52M parameters). We found that the final AVG score is 90.05 which is 2.05 lower than the model with the feature filtering layer. The result shows that adding extra FFNN is necessary for alleviating the errors. In fact, cleaning the features means distilling reliable signals from noisy features by mapping and activation, and the noisy training method is used to handle the error propagation problem. We believe that by using individual FFNN for each feature, our model can filter reliable signals from noisy features and hence generate more accurate feature representations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 193, + 489, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Secondly, to prove that calculating the similarity for the event-only representation and event feature representation separately is more effective than concatenating the original event-only representation with its feature representation and have a single similarity measures encoding step. We conduct an experiment where the representations are simply concatenated and go through a single similarity measurement. The results showed that the model will suffer a performance drop of 2.03 which sufficiently verified the importance of calculating the similarity measures separately.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 468, + 489, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 670, + 253, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To facilitate a more illustrative comparison between our model and CDGM, a case study for the ACE 2005 dataset can be seen in Figure 5. We can see that compared to our model, CDGM additionally clusters \"appointed\" and \"took office\" into an event cluster. However, despite these two events having the same event type, they refer to two different persons being appointed as different ministers, and hence they are two different event. By incorporating different similarity measures and event features, we are able to analyse the coreference relation from different aspects, leading to a more accurate result.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 692, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13553", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/955165a84e7384cbd94fc3460bbcddd0dc94bc20bd67214a446f70e8f1705733.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SettingsModelsMUCB3CEAFeBLANCCoNLLAVG
End-to-endSSED + Supervised(2016)47.1059.9058.7044.4055.2352.53
CDGM(2021)----62.0759.76
Ours59.8368.1765.6754.7664.5662.11
Gold TriggersMSEP(2016)68.0092.9087.4083.2082.7782.88
PAIREDRL(2020b)76.1090.7087.20-84.65-
CDGM(2021)----84.7683.95
Ours79.1892.3788.7986.1886.7886.63
All GoldCDGM(2021)----85.4085.38
Ours87.4495.4892.9993.3891.9792.32
", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 126, + 826, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13: Full experiment results with all four metrics", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 260, + 678, + 274 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input Document", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 198, + 395, + 302, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PARIS, May 14 ( AFP ) Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Wednesday stressed Qatar ' s role in the Middle East peace process during talks with his Qatari counterpart Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al - Thani in Paris . Shalom told a joint press conference that the tiny Gulf state ' s strong relationship with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister , Mahmud Abbas , could be a boost for peace . \" We discussed the Middle East peace process . Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of both parties ( Israel and the Arab world ) to do everything to return to the negotiating table , \" Shalom said . \" Qatar is a very important country on this issue . I know the special relationship that the Qatari foreign minister has with Abu Mazen , \" he said , using Abbas ' s alternative name . The meeting was Shalom ' s first encounter with an Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister on February 27 .Qatar has economic links with Israel without maintaining diplomatic relations , in the face of criticism from other Arab countries .Afterwards Shalom was to fly on to London for talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw .", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 413, + 811, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 233, + 543, + 267, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cluster 1", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 181, + 564, + 231, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "EV1(Type Contact:Meet) : ... process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ...", + "EV2(Type Contact:Meet) : ... for peace . \" We discussed the Middle East peace ...", + "EV3(Type Contact:Meet): ... Over an hour of talks, we asserted the will of ...", + "EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ..." + ], + "bbox": [ + 186, + 587, + 579, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CDGM's", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 220, + 655, + 280, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cluster 1", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 176, + 676, + 226, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "EV1(Type Contact:Meet):...process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ...", + "EV2(Type Contact:Meet):...for peace.\"We discussed the Middle East peace ...", + "EV3(Type Contact:Meet) : ... Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of .", + "EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ..." + ], + "bbox": [ + 181, + 700, + 574, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cluster 2", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 174, + 764, + 228, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "EV1(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister ...", + "EV2(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister …" + ], + "bbox": [ + 181, + 785, + 709, + 807 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5: Case study for ACE 2005 dataset (The event triggers for input document are highlighted in yellow)", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 854, + 863, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13554", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 7 limitation", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 299, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 168, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 7 limitation", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 187, + 297, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract Section 1 Introduction", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 383, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 299, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 Experiment", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 294, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 346, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 Experiment", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 363, + 312, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 390, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Due to space limitation, we do not include these.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 407, + 510, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 Experiment", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 498, + 312, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 524, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Due to space limitation, we do not include these.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 573, + 510, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 598, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 Experiment", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 632, + 312, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 657, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 Experiment", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 740, + 312, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 Experiments", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 785, + 300, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 7 Limitation", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 846, + 302, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 877, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13555", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.2 Model Setup", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 117, + 332, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 142, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4 Experiments Appendix B Full Experiment Results we report the average results of 3 different runs", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 191, + 880, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 233, + 882, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.2 Model Setup", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 282, + 332, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 309, + 877, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 330, + 215, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 357, + 882, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 390, + 248, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 416, + 880, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 464, + 248, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 491, + 880, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 539, + 248, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 565, + 873, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 583, + 248, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 609, + 880, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 640, + 248, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13556", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_model.json b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc11550cb173bf7061c713693a3887a5d55ed2aa --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3189 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.085, + 0.844, + 0.105 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.321, + 0.114, + 0.686, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yao Yao\\(^{1,2}\\), Zuchao Li\\(^{3,*}\\) and Hai Zhao\\(^{1,2,*}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.131, + 0.844, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.148, + 0.843, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence, AI Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.131, + 0.844, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.186, + 0.165, + 0.816, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)National Engineering Research Center for Multimedia Software, School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, P. R. China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.22, + 0.199, + 0.777, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "yaoyao27@sjtu.edu.cn, zcli-charlie@whu.edu.cn," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.368, + 0.216, + 0.636, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Researchers are witnessing knowledge-inspired natural language processing shifts the focus from entity-level to event-level, whereas event coreference resolution is one of the core challenges. This paper proposes a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution. On the basis of event but not entity as before, our model learns and integrates multiple representations from both event alone and event pair. For the former, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for more discriminative event representations. For the latter, we consider multiple similarity measures to capture the distinctions of event pairs. Our proposed model achieves new state-of-the-art on the ACE 2005 benchmark, demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.535, + 0.26, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.56, + 0.49, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) may be generally conducted on the basis of entities. However, researchers are realizing that it is the form of \"event\" that can more comprehensively depict the knowledge clues in NLP tasks (Lee et al., 2012), among which coreference resolution is a fundamental task for either entity or event. Within-document event coreference resolution aims at finding all event mentions that refer to the same real-world event in a document (Lu and Ng, 2018)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.737, + 0.489, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1 shows an example of event coreference resolution from ACE 2005 (Walker et al., 2006) dataset. In the event coreference resolution, the trigger of an event mention usually refers to the word or phrase that describes the event with the most clarity and the event mention is typically the sentence containing the given trigger. As shown" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.262, + 0.883, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
... attend his daughter 's wedding(event1) ceremony ... \n... to be taken(event2) home later in the afternoon \nto marry(event1) his eldest daughter ...
EventTypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
event1Life:MarryPositiveAssertedSpecificFuture
event2Movement:TransportPositiveOtherSpecificFuture
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.382, + 0.883, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An event coreference resolution example from ACE 2005 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.436, + 0.883, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in the given example of Figure 1, the word taken triggers the Transport event. The words wedding and marry trigger the Marry event and these event mentions are coreferent because they both refer to the same real-world Marry event." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.884, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared with entity-level coreference resolution, event coreference resolution is more challenging despite their similarity (Lu and Ng, 2018). The main reasons are: (1) an event contains more complex syntactic information than an entity; (2) event coreference resolution suffers from error propagation since it has more upstream tasks; (3) there are far less triggers than entities in a document. Therefore, simply applying entity coreference resolution to event coreference resolution is unsatisfactory." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Many works utilize event linguistic features to address above challenges. In most cases, as shown in the above example, events that are coreferent have the same event features, such as type, polarity, and modality. Therefore, many studies (Lu and Ng, 2017b; Yu et al., 2020a; Lai et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) have suggested that incorporating event features into event coreference resolution is effective." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite of the developing trend of utilizing event features, the semantic similarity measures for event coreference resolution are less studied. Most of the works simply used element-wise multiplication to measure the similarity between two spans (Lee et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018, 2021) for entity-level" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.857, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author. † Equal contribution. This work was supported by the Key Projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1836222 and 61733011) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2042023kf0133)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13542" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13542-13556" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.702, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NLP tasks. However, incorporating multiple similarity measures interestingly shows helpful in many NLP tasks other than our concerned coreference resolution. For instance, He and Lin (2016) proposed a deep pairwise word interaction model to measure semantic textual similarity between two text pieces, which directly utilized multiple similarity measures for answer selection task and semantic textual similarity measuring task. Liu et al. (2020) designed a U-shaped rewritten network to incorporate multiple similarity measures for context rewriting task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.28, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared to entity-level coreference resolution, event-level coreference resolution focuses more on the cross-sentence semantic relationships, which are more complex and flexible. Therefore, to better address the event coreference resolution problem, we need to measure the relationships between events in more diverse and comprehensive ways. Inspired by this, in this paper, we propose a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution which integrates multiple measures from both event alone and event pair representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.458, + 0.49, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As far as we know, we are the first to introduce more comprehensive and distinguishing measures for event-level coreference resolution. Concretely, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for event alone representation and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair. By conducting experiments on ACE-2005 benchmark, our proposed model shows a significant improvement and achieves a new state-of-the-art F1 score of \\(61.71\\%\\) in end-to-end settings and \\(92.32\\%\\) in all gold settings. Results demonstrate that our model can effectively models the event along features and event pair features, thus surpassing our baseline model and previous state-of-the-art models by large margins." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.714, + 0.27, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.742, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entities serve as the fundamental basis for conducting various knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) tasks (Li et al., 2019, 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Stylianou and Vlahavas, 2021). Event coreference resolution, as an integral sub-task of natural language understanding, has gained increasing attention and finds applications in various domains. Most recent works of event coreference resolution can be categorized into two types: (1) joint models; (2) pipeline models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In 2012, Lee et al. (2012) presented a joint model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for cross-document coreference resolution. The model employed linear regression to build entity and event clusters and jointly solved events and entities references by handling both nominal and verbal mentions. Araki and Mitamura (2015) jointly formulated the event trigger extraction and event coreference as a problem of structured prediction to solve the error propagation problem. The authors utilized segment-based decoding with the multiple-beam search for event trigger identification and combined it with the best-first clustering for within-document event coreference resolution. Lu and Ng (2017a) proposed a joint model of trigger detection, event coreference resolution, and event anaphoricity determination. The model employed a structured conditional random field with two types of factors: (1) unary factors; (2) binary and ternary factors. Yu et al. (2020a) presented a Pairwise Representation Learning scheme for cross-document and within-document event coreference problems. The scheme jointly encoded text snippets pair by forwarding concatenated sentences into a transformer encoder and employed structured argument features to argument the pairwise representation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.485, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Different from these works, in this paper, we adopt a more straightforward pipeline model conforming to the general idea of the task. Pipeline models mainly have two stages: event detection and event coreference resolution. Traditionally, pipeline models first detect event triggers, arguments, and event features and then apply coreference resolution to the predicted event mentions. Liu et al. (2016) first used bidirectional GRU to detect events and a logistic regression model to classify event features (i.e., realis). The model then employed the latent antecedent tree method to conduct coreference resolution. Choubey and Huang (2017) proposed a novel iterative approach for within-document and cross-document event coreference resolution. The method constructs event clusters gradually by exploiting inter-dependencies among event mentions in two stages. (Lai et al., 2021) employed OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and types. For other event features, the authors trained a simple classification model based on SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020). The model then used a context-dependent gated module (CDGM) to incorporate event features for event coreference resolution and a noisy training method to tackle the error propagation problem. Our work is closely related to (Lai et al., 2021). However, the method" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13543" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ologies are different. In our model, we found that a simple FFNN achieves a better result than the gating mechanism which questions the necessity for the CDGM gating method in event coreference resolution. We also innovatively introduce multiple similarity measures for event pair representation. With different ablation experiments and training settings, we verified that our proposed multiple measures learning model is effective and we hope our results can offer a new insight into not only event coreference resolution but also other fundamental tasks in NLP." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.307, + 0.219, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.344, + 0.273, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Formalization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.374, + 0.49, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our model focuses on within-document event coreference resolution. The input of our model is a document \\(D\\) containing \\(n\\) tokens. We then use a pre-tained language model to obtain the contextual embeddings of all the tokens in document \\(D\\). Let \\(X = (x_{1}, \\ldots, x_{n})\\) denote the token embeddings. For every word \\(H_{i}\\), we use \\(S_{token}^{i}\\) and \\(E_{token}^{i}\\) to denote its subword tokens' start and end indices. Similarly, for the event \\(e_{i}\\), \\(S_{trigger}^{i}\\) and \\(E_{trigger}^{i}\\) denote its event trigger's start and end indices." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.563, + 0.291, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Model Overview" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.593, + 0.49, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on our formalization, we present a model flow for event coreference resolution. Our model first uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers following the practice of previous work in a given document and classify its event type. Then a novel prompt-based event features prediction model generates every event alone features." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After obtaining the predicted event triggers and event alone features, we use a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution. The model overview is shown in Figure 2. Our model consists of two parts: single mention encoding and multiple measures pair encoding. Firstly, the single mention encoding is employed to construct event-level representation for the given document \\( D \\). Secondly, the multiple measures pair encoding aims at building event pair representations combined with multi-similarity and event alone features. Finally, we use a scoring layer to calculate the antecedent scores for every event pair." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.084, + 0.845, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Trigger Detection and Event Alone Feature Classification" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.126, + 0.885, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our model uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers and their types and designs a model to predict other event alone features. The overview of event alone features prediction model can be seen in Figure 3. Specifically, we first insert special tokens \\( \\langle t\\rangle \\) and \\( \\langle /t\\rangle \\) around the event trigger to highlight the target event. By doing so, we can transfer the original event feature prediction problem into a traditional text classification problem. To be more specific, we first use BERT-large-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) to build contextualized representations \\( h^r \\) for the input sentence \\( X \\), which can be defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.625, + 0.344, + 0.766, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh ^ {r} = \\operatorname {E n c o d e r} (X)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.37, + 0.882, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then utilize MLP to classify each sentence. The probability distribution of event feature labels is calculated by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.624, + 0.428, + 0.767, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nM ^ {r} = \\operatorname {P o o l e r} \\left(h ^ {r}\\right))\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.453, + 0.818, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP (y | X) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\mathbf {M L P} \\left(M ^ {r}\\right)\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.476, + 0.882, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(y \\in Y\\) and \\(Y\\) denotes a set of pre-defined event linguistic feature labels. We choose the label with the highest probability score among all the event feature labels." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.551, + 0.857, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Event-aware Representation Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.571, + 0.884, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our model integrates multiple linguistics-motivated and attention-based feature learning for event alone representations and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.644, + 0.791, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.1 Event Alone Representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.885, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Event alone representation includes linguistic-aware properties integration and linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature for an event. For linguistic-aware properties in our consideration for this work, type, polarity, modality, genericity and tense, which can be seen in Figure 1, are included. Their properties are used as linguistic-aware event alone features in our model. For feature encoding, we employed the same embedding method used in Lai et al. (2021). Given event \\( e_i \\) feature \\( k \\), our model use a simple embedding layer to obtain its feature representation \\( F_i^k \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides, considering data-driven feature learning, we introduce a linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature extraction module. Inspired by Dobrovolskii (2021), we proposed an attention based" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13544" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.092, + 0.885, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.423, + 0.8, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.445, + 0.49, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "method to encode event mentions. We calculate event representations as weighted sum of their triggers' token embeddings, instead of simply averaging them (Lai et al., 2021). To be more specific, for a given word \\(H_{i}\\), its word-level representation \\(h_i\\) is calculated as where \\(W_{j}\\) is a learnable weight:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.556, + 0.383, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh _ {i} = \\sum_ {j = S _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} W _ {j} \\cdot x _ {j}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.621, + 0.49, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then use the same attention strategy to compute event representation \\( e_i \\) where \\( W_j' \\) is a learnable weight:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.683, + 0.386, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ne _ {i} = \\sum_ {j = S _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} W _ {j} ^ {\\prime} \\cdot h _ {j}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.744, + 0.488, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By using this attention based encoder, our model can generate more accurate event representations with a better focus on important tokens." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.803, + 0.383, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.2 Event Pair Representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After obtaining event alone representations, we design a novel multiple similarity measures for measuring the coreference relationship. Given event representation \\( e_i \\) and \\( e_j \\), we use the following similarity measures to calculate their event pair features:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.445, + 0.881, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linear Similarity The linear similarity between \\( e_i \\) and \\( e_j \\) is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.595, + 0.49, + 0.8, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)} = W _ {l i n} ^ {T} [ e _ {i}; e _ {j} ] + b\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.525, + 0.881, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( W_{lin} \\) is a vector of trainable weights, \\( b \\) is a bias parameter, and [;] is vector concatenation operation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.574, + 0.881, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cosine Similarity The cosine similarity between \\( e_i \\) and \\( e_j \\) is calculated by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.602, + 0.618, + 0.79, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)} = \\frac {e _ {i} \\cdot e _ {j}}{\\| e _ {i} \\| _ {2} \\cdot \\| e _ {j} \\| _ {2}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.662, + 0.728, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\| \\cdot \\| _2\\) denotes L2 norm." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.679, + 0.884, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Element-wise Similarity The element-wise similarity between \\( e_i \\) and \\( e_j \\) is calculated by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.625, + 0.724, + 0.766, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} = e _ {i} \\odot e _ {j}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.759, + 0.852, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\odot\\) denotes element-wise multiplication." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, we concatenate all three measures mentioned with event representation to build event pair representation \\( e_{ij} \\) which is calculated by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.836, + 0.844, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ne _ {i j} = [ e _ {i}; e _ {j}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similarity Fusion Layer After obtaining the pair representation, our model then employed a similarity fusion layer to construct the multi-similarity" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13545" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.089, + 0.49, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.46, + 0.489, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Overview of event alone features prediction model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.516, + 0.49, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "based event pair representation \\(s_{ij}\\), which is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.55, + 0.376, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns _ {i j} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {e} (e _ {i j})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.575, + 0.489, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_e\\) is a feed forward neural network mapping from \\(\\mathbb{R}^{3\\times d_1 + 2}\\to \\mathbb{R}^l\\). By fusing event mentions and similarity measures all together, we are able to generate the event representation which is cleaner and contains richer information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.657, + 0.49, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Feature Filtering Layer Similar to event pair encoding, for each event linguistic feature \\( k \\), we too construct multi-similarity based feature pair representation \\( \\hat{f}_{ij}^{k} \\) by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.738, + 0.46, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nF _ {i j} ^ {k} = [ F _ {i} ^ {k}; F _ {j} ^ {k}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.222, + 0.776, + 0.381, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {i j} ^ {k} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {f} (F _ {i j} ^ {k})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.806, + 0.489, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_f\\) is a feed forward neural network mapping from \\(\\mathbb{R}^{3\\times d_2 + 2}\\to \\mathbb{R}^l\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Whereas predicted features can be noisy and hence cause the error propagation problem. To address this problem, we propose a feature filtering layer to clean the noisy features and focus on more important event alone features. For each feature" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.881, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(k\\), we employed a feed forward neural network to filter the features." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.618, + 0.126, + 0.772, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {i j} ^ {k} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {c} ^ {k} (\\hat {f} _ {i j} ^ {k})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.159, + 0.882, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By doing this, we are able to obtain clean event pair feature representations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.2, + 0.783, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.3 Coreference Scoring Layer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.219, + 0.882, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then concatenate feature pair representations and event pair representation to get the multi-similarity based event-feature pair representation \\( S_{ij} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.596, + 0.282, + 0.795, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {i j} = [ s _ {i j}; f _ {i j} ^ {1}; f _ {i j} ^ {2}; \\dots ; f _ {i j} ^ {m} ]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.307, + 0.882, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, we employ a coreference scoring layer to obtain antecedent scores between event \\(i\\) and event \\(j\\) where \\(\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_s\\) maps from \\(\\mathbb{R}^{(m + 1)\\times l}\\to \\mathbb{R}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.622, + 0.368, + 0.77, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {s} (S _ {i j})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.397, + 0.656, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.422, + 0.617, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.575, + 0.45, + 0.819, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TrainDevTest
#Docs5293040
#Sent19204901676
#Event3342327293
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.884, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: ACE 2005 dataset statistics (# denotes numbers)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.577, + 0.882, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our model on ACE 2005 English dataset (Walker et al., 2006). ACE 2005 dataset adopts a strict notion of event coreference (Song et al., 2015). Specifically, two event mentions are coreferential if and only if \"they had the same agent(s), patient(s), time, and location. We adopt the same split as Chen et al. (2015) and the detailed dataset statistics are shown in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.716, + 0.657, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Model Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.737, + 0.884, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to have a fair comparison with Lai et al. (2021), we too use SpanBERT-base-cased (Joshi" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.789, + 0.838, + 0.891 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ParametersValue
Epochs150
Batch size16
Task learning rate0.0001
Transformer learning rate5e-5
Hidden size500
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.9, + 0.845, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Training parameters for ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13546" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.081, + 0.481, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Event Alone Features (k)Noisy Probability (pk)
Type0.00
Polarity0.00
Modality0.15
Genericity0.15
Tense0.25
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.183, + 0.486, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: noisy training probability for different features" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.224, + 0.489, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2020) as the base Transformer encoder. We use AVG and CoNLL as our evaluation metrics. The AVG is the average F-score of four metrics (Lu and Ng, 2018): MUC, \\(\\mathbf{B}^3\\), \\(\\mathrm{CEAF}_e\\) and BLANC. The CoNLL score is the average of first three metrics. All models are trained for 150 epochs. The detailed training parameters can be seen in Table 2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.338, + 0.49, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to Lai et al. (2021), simply training the model using predicted event alone features may hurt the performance since the prediction of test set contains more errors than that of the train set. Inspired by Lai et al. (2021), we too introduce the noisy training method. Specifically, for every predicted event alone features \\( k \\), we randomly assign a new label with a probability of \\( p_k \\). According to Lai et al. (2021), the probability \\( p_k \\) varies inversely with the discrepancy between the train and test accuracies. Our noisy training probability for different features can be seen in Table 3. The probability value is positively correlated with the accuracy of the feature prediction. The main idea behind this is that for event feature that is more prone to prediction errors, we need a higher replacement probability to eliminate the noise propagation problem. By using the noisy training method, our model can be more sensitive to noisy features and hence mitigate the error propagation problem." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.673, + 0.341, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Results and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.489, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To probe deeper into the effect of different stages in our pipeline model. We employ our model in three settings: end-to-end, gold triggers, and all gold. In end-to-end, we use predicted triggers and predicted features. In gold trigger setting, given gold triggers we predict event features and then apply event coreference. In all gold setting, we utilize gold triggers and gold features to have a better understanding on coreference stage." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.851, + 0.373, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3.1 Event Feature Prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The feature prediction model formulates the event feature prediction problem as a traditional text classification problem by using special tokens to high-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "light event triggers. The details can be seen in the appendix. Compared with the joint classification model proposed used by Lai et al. (2021), our model achieves obvious improvement on most event features. According to Lin et al. (2020), the event detection type-F1 score of OneIE on ACE 2005 test set is 74.7. Table 4 shows the accuracy of different event features." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.215, + 0.885, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Table 4, we can see that comparing to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), our model has a significant advantage on most of the features. We speculate that by introducing special tokens, we are able to maintain more semantic information than simply using the average of the trigger's token embeddings as the classification input." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.338, + 0.661, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3.2 End-to-end" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.358, + 0.883, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The end-to-end event coreference result can be seen in Table 5. We use OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and their types. We then formulate the event feature classification problem as a traditional text classification problem." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.44, + 0.884, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the Table 5, we can see that our model achieves the state of the art on ACE 2005 dataset. Although Peng et al. (2016) used cross-validation to utilize more training data, our model still shows a great improvement. Also, as a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM (Lai et al., 2021) by more than 2 points on AVG, which shows the effectiveness of our proposed pipeline model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.579, + 0.866, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3.3 Gold Triggers and Predicted Features" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.599, + 0.882, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to have a thorough comparison with the CDGM model, we also perform our model on ground-truth triggers and predicted event alone features. The results are shown in Table 6. We achieve an AVG score of 86.63 which significantly improve the CDGM performance by more than 2.5 points. The result sufficiently proves the advantage of our proposed event alone feature classification and multi-similarity coreference model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.755, + 0.638, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3.4 All Gold" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To have a better focus on the event coreference stage of our model, we conduct our experiments on all gold setting in which we use ground-truth triggers and ground-truth features. Table 7 shows the overall result. In all gold setting, we use two training strategy: noisy training and clean training. In clean training strategy, all event features are not randomly replaced. We can see that by using original clean features, we improve the noisy training" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13547" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.245, + 0.082, + 0.753, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsEvent Features
TypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
CDGM(2021)train99.999.999.999.998.4
test95.398.888.487.276.3
Ourstrain99.999.999.499.999.7
test95.398.689.290.377.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.302, + 0.183, + 0.695, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Results of event feature prediction on ACE-2005" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.208, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
cross-validation
SSED(2016)+Supervised55.2352.50
+MSEP53.8051.40
test data
CDGM(2021)+Simple57.5554.79
(all features)+CDGM58.9956.32
+Simple +Noise60.4357.85
+CDGM +Noise62.0759.76
Ours+Noise64.5662.11
(all features)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.383, + 0.443, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: End-to-end results on ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.41, + 0.486, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
PAIREDRL(2020b)84.65-
MSEP(2016)80.3782.90
CDGM(2021)+Simple75.3274.94
(all features)+CDGM +Noise84.7683.95
Ours+Noise86.7886.63
(all features)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.515, + 0.45, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Gold triggers results on ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.555, + 0.49, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "strategy by near 5.5 points. As a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM without noisy training method and reaches the state-of-the-art of 92.32. Such significant improvements demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating multiple similarity measures and attention based encoding." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
CDGM(2021)+Simple85.7585.40
(all features)+CDGM87.9088.30
+CDGM +Noise85.4085.38
Ours+Noise87.1086.83
(all features)-91.9792.32
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.765, + 0.434, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: All gold results on ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.808, + 0.327, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Further Exploration" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.834, + 0.274, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Gated or Not?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to Lai et al. (2021), they propose Context Dependent Gated Module (CDGM) to obtain the event features. CDGM selectively distill input event features using a gating mecha" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.212, + 0.885, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "nism. Therefore, to have a thorough comparison between CDGM and our proposed feature filtering layer, we introduce the CDGM method into our model. More specifically, after calculating the multi-similarity based feature pair representations, we employ CDGM instead of feature filtering layer to clean the event feature pair. We conduct experiments on all three settings and Table 8 shows the comparison result." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.368, + 0.843, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SettingsAVGΔ
CDGMOurs
End-to-end61.3862.11+0.73
Gold triggers85.7286.63+0.91
All gold92.0592.32+0.27
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.454, + 0.882, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Results of using gated strategy and simple strategy with different settings on ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.501, + 0.884, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Table 8, we can see that feature filtering layer outperforms the CDGM in all three settings. The largest improvement is made in gold trigger setting which reaches 0.91 points. Whereas, in all gold scenario, CDGM reaches a similar result to our model with a relatively small margin of 0.27 points. We speculate that in all gold setting, the ground-truth event features are already clean and hence filtering features exerts limited influence on the overall performance. When using ground truth triggers, all event features are predicted and therefore containing errors. In this case, using feature filtering layer can evolve our model to its greatest potential. In conclusion, the result shows that, compared to CDGM, simply using a feed forward neural network can reserve more information and hence achieves obvious improvement." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.786, + 0.695, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Attention or Not?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To have a better analysis on our proposed attention based encoder, we conduct ablation experiments. In the experiments, all models simply concatenate noisy feature pair representation together without any filtering operation (e.g., CDGM; feature filtering layer). We denote this concatenate strategy as simple. To be more specific, We treat the CDGM" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13548" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "model (Lai et al., 2021) without using cleaned features as the baseline which treats event representations as the average of their triggers' token embedding. To have a fair comparison, we also use noisy feature representations by stripping the feature filtering layer and multi-similarity measures off our model and simply keep the attention based encoder. The overall results are shown in Table 9." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.223, + 0.451, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsAVG
baseline
CDGM(2021)+ Average + Simple85.40
Ours+ Attention + Simple90.45
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.334, + 0.487, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Results of using attention based encoder with all gold settings on ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.385, + 0.49, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All models use the same event linguistic features. From Table 9, we can conclude that our model yields an absolute improvement of 5.05 points in AVG score. The great performance sufficiently proves the superiority of our attention based encoder. By introducing learnable weights to calculate the word-level and event-level representations, we believe that it can help our model focus on more critical tokens instead of simply averaging them. In a nutshell, our model acquires the ability to grab the core information for the given event through using an attention based encoder and hence achieves a better result." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.607, + 0.352, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.3 Multi-similarity or Not?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.629, + 0.49, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also conduct ablation experiments for the purpose of understanding the impact of different similarity measures. In the experiment, we deprive our model of multiple similarity measures pair encoder and similarity fusion layer and return to the original method which simply uses element-wise similarity to capture the relevance between two events. We treat the deprived model as the baseline. We then introducing the similarity fusion layer to generate more similarity-aware event pair representations. On the basis of fusion layer, we respectively add cosine similarity and linear similarity to better analyse the different influence they exert on the overall results. Finally, we train our full model on multiple similarity measures. The detailed results can be seen in Table 10." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We can see clearly that our model outperforms the baseline model significantly by 1.82 points on" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.537, + 0.082, + 0.858, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsAVGΔ
-wo fusion layer
Baselineelement-wise similarity)90.50-
-wo fusion layer
Element-wise similarity90.92+0.42
Cosine Similarity89.20-1.30
Linear Similarity90.72+0.22
Element-wise + Cosine Similarity91.07+0.57
Element-wise + Linear Similarity91.73+1.23
Multi-similarity92.32+1.82
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.225, + 0.882, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Results of using different similarity measures with all gold setting on ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.28, + 0.885, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the AVG score. When combined with element-wise similarity, cosine similarity achieves a relatively small improvement compared to linear similarity and even suffers a minor decrease when used alone. We speculate that the main reason is that cosine similarity is more sensitive to the angle between two vectors instead of their lengths. Whereas, with the help of trainable weights, linear similarity can better capture the relevance between events by learning different perspectives of vectors. Nevertheless, our model still shows a great improvement when using all three similarity measures indicating that different similarity measures specialist in different aspects. As a result, we believe that using multiple similarity measures can help the model better capture the similarity between two events from more diverse and comprehensive aspects." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.567, + 0.665, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.4 Noisy or Not?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.589, + 0.884, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To better analyze the usefulness of the noisy training method under different circumstances, we compare the noisy trained models and clean trained models under all three settings. The overall results are shown in Table 11." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.541, + 0.678, + 0.853, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SettingsAVGΔ
CleanNoisy
End-to-end57.0062.11+5.11
Gold triggers78.8786.63+7.76
All gold92.3286.83-5.49
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.773, + 0.882, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Results of using noisy features and clean features with different settings on ACE 2005" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We denote the models which replace the event feature labels randomly as noisy and clean for models which do not. Compared to the end-to-end setting, the model under the gold trigger setting achieves a much more apparent improvement when using the noisy training method. We presume the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13549" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "main reason is that since the event trigger detection is far from perfect, the predicted event features would be more accurate when given the ground-truth triggers. With fewer error propagation problems, our model is able to uncover the deeper connections between event features. Similar to Lai et al. (2021), when using the all gold setting, however, our model suffers a decline of 5.49 points on the AVG score. Since all event features are clean in the all gold setting, our model do not need noisy training to tackle error event features and on the contrary, simply using clean features can already boost the performance to the most degree." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.305, + 0.423, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.5 Performance on Different Length" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.325, + 0.49, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By introducing attention based encoder and multiple measures pair encoder, we believe that we can accredit the great improvement of our model to better performances in long documents. Compared to CDGM, our attention based encoder can better construct word-level representation which can be less influenced by the distance and multiple similarity measures pair encoder further addresses the long-document problem." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.48, + 0.498, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.724, + 0.489, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Performance of different document length in ACE 2005 test set with end-to-end and all gold settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To verify our hypothesis, we evaluate our model and the CDGM model respectively on the ACE 2005 test set for different document length ranges and the results are shown in Figure 4. According to the curves in the figure, in the all gold setting, it is obvious that our model do not suffer a significant decline as the document lengths grow. Although the CDGM model achieves a similar result with our model when the document lengths range be" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tween 1050 and 1199, our model still shows a great advantage over most document length ranges. Especially, when document length range grows from 300 to 900, the CDGM suffers a drastic decline while our model's performance remains at a high level. In the end-to-end setting, our model shows a more obvious advantage in the long documents over the CDGM model indicating that our method can effectively cope with the long documents in different settings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.261, + 0.642, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.288, + 0.885, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution for the first time, as far as we know. By incorporating multiple event features and similarity measures, we are capable of calculating antecedent scores more comprehensively from different aspects. We unleash the potential of employing multiple similarity measures and filtering event features through various ablation experiments and proved that our method can effectively address the long sentence dependency problem. Our model achieves an evident and significant improvement on the ACE 2005 benchmark compared to current state-of-the-art models. In the future work, we aim at exploring the potential of incorporating multiple similarity metrics into different tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.56, + 0.637, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Limitation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.588, + 0.884, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations. Compared to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), introducing multiple metrics to capture flexible cross-sentence event relationships would cause extra computation cost and slightly slow our training. The training parameters of different models can be seen in Table 12. We deprive our model of multiple similarity metrics and denote it as the baseline model. We can see that our model increases \\(7\\%\\) parameters compared to CDGM and \\(0.009\\%\\) compared to the baseline model." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.777, + 0.85, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Models#Training Parameters
Baseline110.51M
CDGM(2021)108.57M
Ours110.52M
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.856, + 0.882, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: The number of training parameters of different models (# denotes numbers)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13550" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.49, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jun Araki and Teruko Mitamura. 2015. Joint event trigger identification and event coreference resolution with structured perceptron. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2074-2080, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yubo Chen, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, Daojian Zeng, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multipooling convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 167-176, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.326, + 0.49, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prafulla Kumar Choubey and Ruihong Huang. 2017. Event coreference resolution by iteratively unfolding inter-dependencies among events. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2124-2133, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.429, + 0.49, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.557, + 0.49, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vladimir Dobrovolskii. 2021. Word-level coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7670-7675, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.647, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hua He and Jimmy Lin. 2016. Pairwise word interaction modeling with deep neural networks for semantic similarity measurement. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 937-948, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.49, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. SpanBERT: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, Trung Bui, Quan Hung Tran, Franck Dernoncourt, and Walter Chang. 2021. A context-dependent gated module for incorporating symbolic semantics into event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3491-3499, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.138, + 0.885, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Heeyoung Lee, Marta Recasens, Angel Chang, Mihai Surdeanu, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Joint entity and event coreference resolution across documents. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 489-500, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.255, + 0.885, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.346, + 0.885, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Jiaxun Cai, Zhuosheng Zhang, Hai Zhao, Gongshen Liu, Linlin Li, and Luo Si. 2018. A unified syntax-aware framework for semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2401-2411. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.463, + 0.885, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Hai Zhao, Yiqing Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2019. Dependency or span, end-to-end uniform semantic role labeling. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 6730-6737. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.606, + 0.885, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zuchao Li, Kevin Parnow, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Incorporating rich syntax information in grammatical error correction. Inf. Process. Manag., 59(3):102891." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.658, + 0.885, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zuchao Li, Hai Zhao, Shexia He, and Jiaxun Cai. 2021. Syntax role for neural semantic role labeling. Comput. Linguistics, 47(3):529-574." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.801, + 0.885, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, Bin Zhou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. Incomplete utterance rewriting as semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2846-2857, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengzhong Liu, Jun Araki, Teruko Mitamura, and Edward H. Hovy. 2016. CMU-LTI at KBP 2016 event" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13551" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "nugget track. In Proceedings of the 2016 Text Analysis Conference, TAC 2016, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 14-15, 2016. NIST." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.138, + 0.487, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017a. Joint learning for event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 90-101, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.229, + 0.487, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017b. Learning antecedent structures for event coreference resolution. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, ICMLA 2017, Cancun, Mexico, December 18-21, 2017, pages 113-118. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.307, + 0.487, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2018. Event coreference resolution: A survey of two decades of research. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, pages 5479-5486. ijcai.org." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.398, + 0.486, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jialong Tang, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2022. End-to-end neural event coreference resolution. Artif. Intell., 303:103632." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.45, + 0.487, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoruo Peng, Yangqiu Song, and Dan Roth. 2016. Event detection and co-reference with minimal supervision. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 392-402, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.541, + 0.487, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyi Song, Ann Bies, Stephanie Strassel, Tom Riese, Justin Mott, Joe Ellis, Jonathan Wright, Seth Kulick, Neville Ryant, and Xiaoyi Ma. 2015. From light to rich ERE: Annotation of entities, relations, and events. In Proceedings of the The 3rd Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation, pages 89-98, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.658, + 0.486, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikolaos Stylianou and Ioannis P. Vlahavas. 2021. A neural entity coreference resolution review. Expert Syst. Appl., 168:114466." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.71, + 0.487, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 57:45." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.774, + 0.487, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yifei Yang, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Nested named entity recognition as corpus aware holistic structure parsing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2022, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 12-17, 2022, pages 2472-2482. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020a. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12808." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020b. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. CoRR, abs/2010.12808." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13552" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.239, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.11, + 0.357, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Full Experiment Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.131, + 0.488, + 0.162 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report the all four metrics of our experiment results in Table 13." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.173, + 0.284, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.194, + 0.49, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to show that adding extra feature filtering FFNN layer is indeed effective instead of simply using additional parameters to help the model fit, we deprive our model of the feature filtering layer and increase the number of training parameters to the same size as before (110.52M parameters). We found that the final AVG score is 90.05 which is 2.05 lower than the model with the feature filtering layer. The result shows that adding extra FFNN is necessary for alleviating the errors. In fact, cleaning the features means distilling reliable signals from noisy features by mapping and activation, and the noisy training method is used to handle the error propagation problem. We believe that by using individual FFNN for each feature, our model can filter reliable signals from noisy features and hence generate more accurate feature representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.469, + 0.49, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Secondly, to prove that calculating the similarity for the event-only representation and event feature representation separately is more effective than concatenating the original event-only representation with its feature representation and have a single similarity measures encoding step. We conduct an experiment where the representations are simply concatenated and go through a single similarity measurement. The results showed that the model will suffer a performance drop of 2.03 which sufficiently verified the importance of calculating the similarity measures separately." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.671, + 0.254, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.693, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To facilitate a more illustrative comparison between our model and CDGM, a case study for the ACE 2005 dataset can be seen in Figure 5. We can see that compared to our model, CDGM additionally clusters \"appointed\" and \"took office\" into an event cluster. However, despite these two events having the same event type, they refer to two different persons being appointed as different ministers, and hence they are two different event. By incorporating different similarity measures and event features, we are able to analyse the coreference relation from different aspects, leading to a more accurate result." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13553" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.172, + 0.127, + 0.827, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SettingsModelsMUCB3CEAFeBLANCCoNLLAVG
End-to-endSSED + Supervised(2016)47.1059.9058.7044.4055.2352.53
CDGM(2021)----62.0759.76
Ours59.8368.1765.6754.7664.5662.11
Gold TriggersMSEP(2016)68.0092.9087.4083.2082.7782.88
PAIREDRL(2020b)76.1090.7087.20-84.65-
CDGM(2021)----84.7683.95
Ours79.1892.3788.7986.1886.7886.63
All GoldCDGM(2021)----85.4085.38
Ours87.4495.4892.9993.3891.9792.32
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.261, + 0.68, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: Full experiment results with all four metrics" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.199, + 0.396, + 0.304, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input Document" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.166, + 0.414, + 0.812, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PARIS, May 14 ( AFP ) Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Wednesday stressed Qatar ' s role in the Middle East peace process during talks with his Qatari counterpart Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al - Thani in Paris . Shalom told a joint press conference that the tiny Gulf state ' s strong relationship with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister , Mahmud Abbas , could be a boost for peace . \" We discussed the Middle East peace process . Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of both parties ( Israel and the Arab world ) to do everything to return to the negotiating table , \" Shalom said . \" Qatar is a very important country on this issue . I know the special relationship that the Qatari foreign minister has with Abu Mazen , \" he said , using Abbas ' s alternative name . The meeting was Shalom ' s first encounter with an Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister on February 27 .Qatar has economic links with Israel without maintaining diplomatic relations , in the face of criticism from other Arab countries .Afterwards Shalom was to fly on to London for talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw ." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.234, + 0.544, + 0.268, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.565, + 0.233, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cluster 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.588, + 0.58, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV1(Type Contact:Meet) : ... process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.599, + 0.581, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV2(Type Contact:Meet) : ... for peace . \" We discussed the Middle East peace ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.608, + 0.564, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV3(Type Contact:Meet): ... Over an hour of talks, we asserted the will of ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.618, + 0.575, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ..." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.588, + 0.581, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.656, + 0.281, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CDGM's" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.177, + 0.677, + 0.228, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cluster 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.701, + 0.574, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV1(Type Contact:Meet):...process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.712, + 0.575, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV2(Type Contact:Meet):...for peace.\"We discussed the Middle East peace ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.721, + 0.552, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV3(Type Contact:Meet) : ... Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.731, + 0.57, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ..." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.701, + 0.575, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.765, + 0.229, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cluster 2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.787, + 0.654, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV1(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.797, + 0.71, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EV2(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister …" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.787, + 0.71, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.855, + 0.865, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Case study for ACE 2005 dataset (The event triggers for input document are highlighted in yellow)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13554" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.145, + 0.3, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 7 limitation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.17, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.188, + 0.299, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 7 limitation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.213, + 0.696, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.231, + 0.384, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract Section 1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.257, + 0.669, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.274, + 0.232, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.3, + 0.489, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.322, + 0.295, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.347, + 0.53, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.365, + 0.313, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.408, + 0.512, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Due to space limitation, we do not include these." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.433, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.499, + 0.313, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.574, + 0.512, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Due to space limitation, we do not include these." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.599, + 0.881, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.633, + 0.313, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.658, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.741, + 0.313, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.787, + 0.302, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.847, + 0.304, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 7 Limitation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.878, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13555" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.118, + 0.334, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.2 Model Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.884, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.192, + 0.882, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4 Experiments Appendix B Full Experiment Results we report the average results of 3 different runs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.234, + 0.884, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.284, + 0.334, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.2 Model Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.31, + 0.878, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.331, + 0.216, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.358, + 0.883, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.391, + 0.25, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.417, + 0.882, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.466, + 0.25, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.492, + 0.882, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.541, + 0.25, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.567, + 0.875, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.584, + 0.25, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.61, + 0.882, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.642, + 0.25, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13556" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4889afe7241abb3dba38ca52014edc94025b7293 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/74a798ae-3644-4b8d-971d-d0e003ce1a90_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dd171fad3f288a724dcb88437195800ccac769b33bbdf89ed43fc06b561ad5ae +size 498570 diff --git a/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/full.md b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8b77b91a396e7556b060b4f819bc9ed4e061b9f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ +# Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution + +Yao Yao $^{1,2}$ , Zuchao Li $^{3,*}$ and Hai Zhao $^{1,2,*}$ + +$^{1}$ Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University +$^{2}$ MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence, AI Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University + +$^{3}$ National Engineering Research Center for Multimedia Software, School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, P. R. China + +yaoyao27@sjtu.edu.cn, zcli-charlie@whu.edu.cn, + +zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Researchers are witnessing knowledge-inspired natural language processing shifts the focus from entity-level to event-level, whereas event coreference resolution is one of the core challenges. This paper proposes a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution. On the basis of event but not entity as before, our model learns and integrates multiple representations from both event alone and event pair. For the former, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for more discriminative event representations. For the latter, we consider multiple similarity measures to capture the distinctions of event pairs. Our proposed model achieves new state-of-the-art on the ACE 2005 benchmark, demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed framework. + +# 1 Introduction + +Knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) may be generally conducted on the basis of entities. However, researchers are realizing that it is the form of "event" that can more comprehensively depict the knowledge clues in NLP tasks (Lee et al., 2012), among which coreference resolution is a fundamental task for either entity or event. Within-document event coreference resolution aims at finding all event mentions that refer to the same real-world event in a document (Lu and Ng, 2018). + +Figure 1 shows an example of event coreference resolution from ACE 2005 (Walker et al., 2006) dataset. In the event coreference resolution, the trigger of an event mention usually refers to the word or phrase that describes the event with the most clarity and the event mention is typically the sentence containing the given trigger. As shown + +
... attend his daughter 's wedding(event1) ceremony ... +... to be taken(event2) home later in the afternoon +to marry(event1) his eldest daughter ...
EventTypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
event1Life:MarryPositiveAssertedSpecificFuture
event2Movement:TransportPositiveOtherSpecificFuture
+ +Figure 1: An event coreference resolution example from ACE 2005 dataset. + +in the given example of Figure 1, the word taken triggers the Transport event. The words wedding and marry trigger the Marry event and these event mentions are coreferent because they both refer to the same real-world Marry event. + +Compared with entity-level coreference resolution, event coreference resolution is more challenging despite their similarity (Lu and Ng, 2018). The main reasons are: (1) an event contains more complex syntactic information than an entity; (2) event coreference resolution suffers from error propagation since it has more upstream tasks; (3) there are far less triggers than entities in a document. Therefore, simply applying entity coreference resolution to event coreference resolution is unsatisfactory. + +Many works utilize event linguistic features to address above challenges. In most cases, as shown in the above example, events that are coreferent have the same event features, such as type, polarity, and modality. Therefore, many studies (Lu and Ng, 2017b; Yu et al., 2020a; Lai et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) have suggested that incorporating event features into event coreference resolution is effective. + +Despite of the developing trend of utilizing event features, the semantic similarity measures for event coreference resolution are less studied. Most of the works simply used element-wise multiplication to measure the similarity between two spans (Lee et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018, 2021) for entity-level + +NLP tasks. However, incorporating multiple similarity measures interestingly shows helpful in many NLP tasks other than our concerned coreference resolution. For instance, He and Lin (2016) proposed a deep pairwise word interaction model to measure semantic textual similarity between two text pieces, which directly utilized multiple similarity measures for answer selection task and semantic textual similarity measuring task. Liu et al. (2020) designed a U-shaped rewritten network to incorporate multiple similarity measures for context rewriting task. + +Compared to entity-level coreference resolution, event-level coreference resolution focuses more on the cross-sentence semantic relationships, which are more complex and flexible. Therefore, to better address the event coreference resolution problem, we need to measure the relationships between events in more diverse and comprehensive ways. Inspired by this, in this paper, we propose a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution which integrates multiple measures from both event alone and event pair representations. + +As far as we know, we are the first to introduce more comprehensive and distinguishing measures for event-level coreference resolution. Concretely, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for event alone representation and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair. By conducting experiments on ACE-2005 benchmark, our proposed model shows a significant improvement and achieves a new state-of-the-art F1 score of $61.71\%$ in end-to-end settings and $92.32\%$ in all gold settings. Results demonstrate that our model can effectively models the event along features and event pair features, thus surpassing our baseline model and previous state-of-the-art models by large margins. + +# 2 Related Work + +Entities serve as the fundamental basis for conducting various knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) tasks (Li et al., 2019, 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Stylianou and Vlahavas, 2021). Event coreference resolution, as an integral sub-task of natural language understanding, has gained increasing attention and finds applications in various domains. Most recent works of event coreference resolution can be categorized into two types: (1) joint models; (2) pipeline models. + +In 2012, Lee et al. (2012) presented a joint model + +for cross-document coreference resolution. The model employed linear regression to build entity and event clusters and jointly solved events and entities references by handling both nominal and verbal mentions. Araki and Mitamura (2015) jointly formulated the event trigger extraction and event coreference as a problem of structured prediction to solve the error propagation problem. The authors utilized segment-based decoding with the multiple-beam search for event trigger identification and combined it with the best-first clustering for within-document event coreference resolution. Lu and Ng (2017a) proposed a joint model of trigger detection, event coreference resolution, and event anaphoricity determination. The model employed a structured conditional random field with two types of factors: (1) unary factors; (2) binary and ternary factors. Yu et al. (2020a) presented a Pairwise Representation Learning scheme for cross-document and within-document event coreference problems. The scheme jointly encoded text snippets pair by forwarding concatenated sentences into a transformer encoder and employed structured argument features to argument the pairwise representation. + +Different from these works, in this paper, we adopt a more straightforward pipeline model conforming to the general idea of the task. Pipeline models mainly have two stages: event detection and event coreference resolution. Traditionally, pipeline models first detect event triggers, arguments, and event features and then apply coreference resolution to the predicted event mentions. Liu et al. (2016) first used bidirectional GRU to detect events and a logistic regression model to classify event features (i.e., realis). The model then employed the latent antecedent tree method to conduct coreference resolution. Choubey and Huang (2017) proposed a novel iterative approach for within-document and cross-document event coreference resolution. The method constructs event clusters gradually by exploiting inter-dependencies among event mentions in two stages. (Lai et al., 2021) employed OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and types. For other event features, the authors trained a simple classification model based on SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020). The model then used a context-dependent gated module (CDGM) to incorporate event features for event coreference resolution and a noisy training method to tackle the error propagation problem. Our work is closely related to (Lai et al., 2021). However, the method + +ologies are different. In our model, we found that a simple FFNN achieves a better result than the gating mechanism which questions the necessity for the CDGM gating method in event coreference resolution. We also innovatively introduce multiple similarity measures for event pair representation. With different ablation experiments and training settings, we verified that our proposed multiple measures learning model is effective and we hope our results can offer a new insight into not only event coreference resolution but also other fundamental tasks in NLP. + +# 3 Method + +# 3.1 Formalization + +Our model focuses on within-document event coreference resolution. The input of our model is a document $D$ containing $n$ tokens. We then use a pre-tained language model to obtain the contextual embeddings of all the tokens in document $D$ . Let $X = (x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n})$ denote the token embeddings. For every word $H_{i}$ , we use $S_{token}^{i}$ and $E_{token}^{i}$ to denote its subword tokens' start and end indices. Similarly, for the event $e_{i}$ , $S_{trigger}^{i}$ and $E_{trigger}^{i}$ denote its event trigger's start and end indices. + +# 3.2 Model Overview + +Based on our formalization, we present a model flow for event coreference resolution. Our model first uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers following the practice of previous work in a given document and classify its event type. Then a novel prompt-based event features prediction model generates every event alone features. + +After obtaining the predicted event triggers and event alone features, we use a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution. The model overview is shown in Figure 2. Our model consists of two parts: single mention encoding and multiple measures pair encoding. Firstly, the single mention encoding is employed to construct event-level representation for the given document $D$ . Secondly, the multiple measures pair encoding aims at building event pair representations combined with multi-similarity and event alone features. Finally, we use a scoring layer to calculate the antecedent scores for every event pair. + +# 4 Trigger Detection and Event Alone Feature Classification + +Our model uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers and their types and designs a model to predict other event alone features. The overview of event alone features prediction model can be seen in Figure 3. Specifically, we first insert special tokens $\langle t\rangle$ and $\langle /t\rangle$ around the event trigger to highlight the target event. By doing so, we can transfer the original event feature prediction problem into a traditional text classification problem. To be more specific, we first use BERT-large-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) to build contextualized representations $h^r$ for the input sentence $X$ , which can be defined as: + +$$ +h ^ {r} = \operatorname {E n c o d e r} (X) +$$ + +We then utilize MLP to classify each sentence. The probability distribution of event feature labels is calculated by: + +$$ +M ^ {r} = \operatorname {P o o l e r} \left(h ^ {r}\right)) +$$ + +$$ +P (y | X) = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(\mathbf {M L P} \left(M ^ {r}\right)\right) +$$ + +where $y \in Y$ and $Y$ denotes a set of pre-defined event linguistic feature labels. We choose the label with the highest probability score among all the event feature labels. + +# 4.1 Event-aware Representation Learning + +Our model integrates multiple linguistics-motivated and attention-based feature learning for event alone representations and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair. + +# 4.1.1 Event Alone Representation + +Event alone representation includes linguistic-aware properties integration and linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature for an event. For linguistic-aware properties in our consideration for this work, type, polarity, modality, genericity and tense, which can be seen in Figure 1, are included. Their properties are used as linguistic-aware event alone features in our model. For feature encoding, we employed the same embedding method used in Lai et al. (2021). Given event $e_i$ feature $k$ , our model use a simple embedding layer to obtain its feature representation $F_i^k$ . + +Besides, considering data-driven feature learning, we introduce a linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature extraction module. Inspired by Dobrovolskii (2021), we proposed an attention based + +![](images/309e2291623df1964615ba25b65e8aac2fcf2041ac59f40345d1d5fb58233887.jpg) +Figure 2: Overview of multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution + +method to encode event mentions. We calculate event representations as weighted sum of their triggers' token embeddings, instead of simply averaging them (Lai et al., 2021). To be more specific, for a given word $H_{i}$ , its word-level representation $h_i$ is calculated as where $W_{j}$ is a learnable weight: + +$$ +h _ {i} = \sum_ {j = S _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} W _ {j} \cdot x _ {j} +$$ + +We then use the same attention strategy to compute event representation $e_i$ where $W_j'$ is a learnable weight: + +$$ +e _ {i} = \sum_ {j = S _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} W _ {j} ^ {\prime} \cdot h _ {j} +$$ + +By using this attention based encoder, our model can generate more accurate event representations with a better focus on important tokens. + +# 4.1.2 Event Pair Representation + +After obtaining event alone representations, we design a novel multiple similarity measures for measuring the coreference relationship. Given event representation $e_i$ and $e_j$ , we use the following similarity measures to calculate their event pair features: + +Linear Similarity The linear similarity between $e_i$ and $e_j$ is defined as: + +$$ +S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)} = W _ {l i n} ^ {T} [ e _ {i}; e _ {j} ] + b +$$ + +where $W_{lin}$ is a vector of trainable weights, $b$ is a bias parameter, and [;] is vector concatenation operation. + +Cosine Similarity The cosine similarity between $e_i$ and $e_j$ is calculated by: + +$$ +S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)} = \frac {e _ {i} \cdot e _ {j}}{\| e _ {i} \| _ {2} \cdot \| e _ {j} \| _ {2}} +$$ + +where $\| \cdot \| _2$ denotes L2 norm. + +Element-wise Similarity The element-wise similarity between $e_i$ and $e_j$ is calculated by: + +$$ +S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} = e _ {i} \odot e _ {j} +$$ + +where $\odot$ denotes element-wise multiplication. + +Then, we concatenate all three measures mentioned with event representation to build event pair representation $e_{ij}$ which is calculated by: + +$$ +e _ {i j} = [ e _ {i}; e _ {j}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ] +$$ + +Similarity Fusion Layer After obtaining the pair representation, our model then employed a similarity fusion layer to construct the multi-similarity + +![](images/f8cace487bcb05722806ca751fe3826e15bd70d1f305ae6f71d69721d9dd7b02.jpg) +Figure 3: Overview of event alone features prediction model + +based event pair representation $s_{ij}$ , which is defined as: + +$$ +s _ {i j} = \mathbf {F F N N} _ {e} (e _ {i j}) +$$ + +where $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{F}\mathbf{N}\mathbf{N}_e$ is a feed forward neural network mapping from $\mathbb{R}^{3\times d_1 + 2}\to \mathbb{R}^l$ . By fusing event mentions and similarity measures all together, we are able to generate the event representation which is cleaner and contains richer information. + +Feature Filtering Layer Similar to event pair encoding, for each event linguistic feature $k$ , we too construct multi-similarity based feature pair representation $\hat{f}_{ij}^{k}$ by: + +$$ +F _ {i j} ^ {k} = [ F _ {i} ^ {k}; F _ {j} ^ {k}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ] +$$ + +$$ +f _ {i j} ^ {k} = \mathbf {F F N N} _ {f} (F _ {i j} ^ {k}) +$$ + +where $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{F}\mathbf{N}\mathbf{N}_f$ is a feed forward neural network mapping from $\mathbb{R}^{3\times d_2 + 2}\to \mathbb{R}^l$ + +Whereas predicted features can be noisy and hence cause the error propagation problem. To address this problem, we propose a feature filtering layer to clean the noisy features and focus on more important event alone features. For each feature + +$k$ , we employed a feed forward neural network to filter the features. + +$$ +f _ {i j} ^ {k} = \mathbf {F F N N} _ {c} ^ {k} (\hat {f} _ {i j} ^ {k}) +$$ + +By doing this, we are able to obtain clean event pair feature representations. + +# 4.1.3 Coreference Scoring Layer + +We then concatenate feature pair representations and event pair representation to get the multi-similarity based event-feature pair representation $S_{ij}$ . + +$$ +S _ {i j} = [ s _ {i j}; f _ {i j} ^ {1}; f _ {i j} ^ {2}; \dots ; f _ {i j} ^ {m} ] +$$ + +Next, we employ a coreference scoring layer to obtain antecedent scores between event $i$ and event $j$ where $\mathbf{F}\mathbf{F}\mathbf{N}\mathbf{N}_s$ maps from $\mathbb{R}^{(m + 1)\times l}\to \mathbb{R}$ + +$$ +A = \mathbf {F F N N} _ {s} (S _ {i j}) +$$ + +# 5 Experiments + +# 5.1 Dataset + +
TrainDevTest
#Docs5293040
#Sent19204901676
#Event3342327293
+ +We evaluate our model on ACE 2005 English dataset (Walker et al., 2006). ACE 2005 dataset adopts a strict notion of event coreference (Song et al., 2015). Specifically, two event mentions are coreferential if and only if "they had the same agent(s), patient(s), time, and location. We adopt the same split as Chen et al. (2015) and the detailed dataset statistics are shown in Table 1. + +# 5.2 Model Setup + +In order to have a fair comparison with Lai et al. (2021), we too use SpanBERT-base-cased (Joshi + +Table 1: ACE 2005 dataset statistics (# denotes numbers) + +
ParametersValue
Epochs150
Batch size16
Task learning rate0.0001
Transformer learning rate5e-5
Hidden size500
+ +Table 2: Training parameters for ACE 2005 + +
Event Alone Features (k)Noisy Probability (pk)
Type0.00
Polarity0.00
Modality0.15
Genericity0.15
Tense0.25
+ +Table 3: noisy training probability for different features + +et al., 2020) as the base Transformer encoder. We use AVG and CoNLL as our evaluation metrics. The AVG is the average F-score of four metrics (Lu and Ng, 2018): MUC, $\mathbf{B}^3$ , $\mathrm{CEAF}_e$ and BLANC. The CoNLL score is the average of first three metrics. All models are trained for 150 epochs. The detailed training parameters can be seen in Table 2 + +According to Lai et al. (2021), simply training the model using predicted event alone features may hurt the performance since the prediction of test set contains more errors than that of the train set. Inspired by Lai et al. (2021), we too introduce the noisy training method. Specifically, for every predicted event alone features $k$ , we randomly assign a new label with a probability of $p_k$ . According to Lai et al. (2021), the probability $p_k$ varies inversely with the discrepancy between the train and test accuracies. Our noisy training probability for different features can be seen in Table 3. The probability value is positively correlated with the accuracy of the feature prediction. The main idea behind this is that for event feature that is more prone to prediction errors, we need a higher replacement probability to eliminate the noise propagation problem. By using the noisy training method, our model can be more sensitive to noisy features and hence mitigate the error propagation problem. + +# 5.3 Results and Discussion + +To probe deeper into the effect of different stages in our pipeline model. We employ our model in three settings: end-to-end, gold triggers, and all gold. In end-to-end, we use predicted triggers and predicted features. In gold trigger setting, given gold triggers we predict event features and then apply event coreference. In all gold setting, we utilize gold triggers and gold features to have a better understanding on coreference stage. + +# 5.3.1 Event Feature Prediction + +The feature prediction model formulates the event feature prediction problem as a traditional text classification problem by using special tokens to high- + +light event triggers. The details can be seen in the appendix. Compared with the joint classification model proposed used by Lai et al. (2021), our model achieves obvious improvement on most event features. According to Lin et al. (2020), the event detection type-F1 score of OneIE on ACE 2005 test set is 74.7. Table 4 shows the accuracy of different event features. + +From Table 4, we can see that comparing to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), our model has a significant advantage on most of the features. We speculate that by introducing special tokens, we are able to maintain more semantic information than simply using the average of the trigger's token embeddings as the classification input. + +# 5.3.2 End-to-end + +The end-to-end event coreference result can be seen in Table 5. We use OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and their types. We then formulate the event feature classification problem as a traditional text classification problem. + +From the Table 5, we can see that our model achieves the state of the art on ACE 2005 dataset. Although Peng et al. (2016) used cross-validation to utilize more training data, our model still shows a great improvement. Also, as a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM (Lai et al., 2021) by more than 2 points on AVG, which shows the effectiveness of our proposed pipeline model. + +# 5.3.3 Gold Triggers and Predicted Features + +In order to have a thorough comparison with the CDGM model, we also perform our model on ground-truth triggers and predicted event alone features. The results are shown in Table 6. We achieve an AVG score of 86.63 which significantly improve the CDGM performance by more than 2.5 points. The result sufficiently proves the advantage of our proposed event alone feature classification and multi-similarity coreference model. + +# 5.3.4 All Gold + +To have a better focus on the event coreference stage of our model, we conduct our experiments on all gold setting in which we use ground-truth triggers and ground-truth features. Table 7 shows the overall result. In all gold setting, we use two training strategy: noisy training and clean training. In clean training strategy, all event features are not randomly replaced. We can see that by using original clean features, we improve the noisy training + +
ModelsEvent Features
TypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
CDGM(2021)train99.999.999.999.998.4
test95.398.888.487.276.3
Ourstrain99.999.999.499.999.7
test95.398.689.290.377.6
+ +Table 4: Results of event feature prediction on ACE-2005 + +
ModelsCoNLLAVG
cross-validation
SSED(2016)+Supervised55.2352.50
+MSEP53.8051.40
test data
CDGM(2021)+Simple57.5554.79
(all features)+CDGM58.9956.32
+Simple +Noise60.4357.85
+CDGM +Noise62.0759.76
Ours+Noise64.5662.11
(all features)
+ +Table 5: End-to-end results on ACE 2005 + +
ModelsCoNLLAVG
PAIREDRL(2020b)84.65-
MSEP(2016)80.3782.90
CDGM(2021)+Simple75.3274.94
(all features)+CDGM +Noise84.7683.95
Ours+Noise86.7886.63
(all features)
+ +strategy by near 5.5 points. As a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM without noisy training method and reaches the state-of-the-art of 92.32. Such significant improvements demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating multiple similarity measures and attention based encoding. + +Table 6: Gold triggers results on ACE 2005 + +
ModelsCoNLLAVG
CDGM(2021)+Simple85.7585.40
(all features)+CDGM87.9088.30
+CDGM +Noise85.4085.38
Ours+Noise87.1086.83
(all features)-91.9792.32
+ +# 6 Further Exploration + +# 6.1 Gated or Not? + +According to Lai et al. (2021), they propose Context Dependent Gated Module (CDGM) to obtain the event features. CDGM selectively distill input event features using a gating mecha + +nism. Therefore, to have a thorough comparison between CDGM and our proposed feature filtering layer, we introduce the CDGM method into our model. More specifically, after calculating the multi-similarity based feature pair representations, we employ CDGM instead of feature filtering layer to clean the event feature pair. We conduct experiments on all three settings and Table 8 shows the comparison result. + +Table 7: All gold results on ACE 2005 + +
SettingsAVGΔ
CDGMOurs
End-to-end61.3862.11+0.73
Gold triggers85.7286.63+0.91
All gold92.0592.32+0.27
+ +Table 8: Results of using gated strategy and simple strategy with different settings on ACE 2005 + +From Table 8, we can see that feature filtering layer outperforms the CDGM in all three settings. The largest improvement is made in gold trigger setting which reaches 0.91 points. Whereas, in all gold scenario, CDGM reaches a similar result to our model with a relatively small margin of 0.27 points. We speculate that in all gold setting, the ground-truth event features are already clean and hence filtering features exerts limited influence on the overall performance. When using ground truth triggers, all event features are predicted and therefore containing errors. In this case, using feature filtering layer can evolve our model to its greatest potential. In conclusion, the result shows that, compared to CDGM, simply using a feed forward neural network can reserve more information and hence achieves obvious improvement. + +# 6.2 Attention or Not? + +To have a better analysis on our proposed attention based encoder, we conduct ablation experiments. In the experiments, all models simply concatenate noisy feature pair representation together without any filtering operation (e.g., CDGM; feature filtering layer). We denote this concatenate strategy as simple. To be more specific, We treat the CDGM + +model (Lai et al., 2021) without using cleaned features as the baseline which treats event representations as the average of their triggers' token embedding. To have a fair comparison, we also use noisy feature representations by stripping the feature filtering layer and multi-similarity measures off our model and simply keep the attention based encoder. The overall results are shown in Table 9. + +
ModelsAVG
baseline
CDGM(2021)+ Average + Simple85.40
Ours+ Attention + Simple90.45
+ +All models use the same event linguistic features. From Table 9, we can conclude that our model yields an absolute improvement of 5.05 points in AVG score. The great performance sufficiently proves the superiority of our attention based encoder. By introducing learnable weights to calculate the word-level and event-level representations, we believe that it can help our model focus on more critical tokens instead of simply averaging them. In a nutshell, our model acquires the ability to grab the core information for the given event through using an attention based encoder and hence achieves a better result. + +# 6.3 Multi-similarity or Not? + +We also conduct ablation experiments for the purpose of understanding the impact of different similarity measures. In the experiment, we deprive our model of multiple similarity measures pair encoder and similarity fusion layer and return to the original method which simply uses element-wise similarity to capture the relevance between two events. We treat the deprived model as the baseline. We then introducing the similarity fusion layer to generate more similarity-aware event pair representations. On the basis of fusion layer, we respectively add cosine similarity and linear similarity to better analyse the different influence they exert on the overall results. Finally, we train our full model on multiple similarity measures. The detailed results can be seen in Table 10. + +We can see clearly that our model outperforms the baseline model significantly by 1.82 points on + +Table 9: Results of using attention based encoder with all gold settings on ACE 2005 + +
ModelsAVGΔ
-wo fusion layer
Baselineelement-wise similarity)90.50-
-wo fusion layer
Element-wise similarity90.92+0.42
Cosine Similarity89.20-1.30
Linear Similarity90.72+0.22
Element-wise + Cosine Similarity91.07+0.57
Element-wise + Linear Similarity91.73+1.23
Multi-similarity92.32+1.82
+ +the AVG score. When combined with element-wise similarity, cosine similarity achieves a relatively small improvement compared to linear similarity and even suffers a minor decrease when used alone. We speculate that the main reason is that cosine similarity is more sensitive to the angle between two vectors instead of their lengths. Whereas, with the help of trainable weights, linear similarity can better capture the relevance between events by learning different perspectives of vectors. Nevertheless, our model still shows a great improvement when using all three similarity measures indicating that different similarity measures specialist in different aspects. As a result, we believe that using multiple similarity measures can help the model better capture the similarity between two events from more diverse and comprehensive aspects. + +# 6.4 Noisy or Not? + +To better analyze the usefulness of the noisy training method under different circumstances, we compare the noisy trained models and clean trained models under all three settings. The overall results are shown in Table 11. + +Table 10: Results of using different similarity measures with all gold setting on ACE 2005 + +
SettingsAVGΔ
CleanNoisy
End-to-end57.0062.11+5.11
Gold triggers78.8786.63+7.76
All gold92.3286.83-5.49
+ +Table 11: Results of using noisy features and clean features with different settings on ACE 2005 + +We denote the models which replace the event feature labels randomly as noisy and clean for models which do not. Compared to the end-to-end setting, the model under the gold trigger setting achieves a much more apparent improvement when using the noisy training method. We presume the + +main reason is that since the event trigger detection is far from perfect, the predicted event features would be more accurate when given the ground-truth triggers. With fewer error propagation problems, our model is able to uncover the deeper connections between event features. Similar to Lai et al. (2021), when using the all gold setting, however, our model suffers a decline of 5.49 points on the AVG score. Since all event features are clean in the all gold setting, our model do not need noisy training to tackle error event features and on the contrary, simply using clean features can already boost the performance to the most degree. + +# 6.5 Performance on Different Length + +By introducing attention based encoder and multiple measures pair encoder, we believe that we can accredit the great improvement of our model to better performances in long documents. Compared to CDGM, our attention based encoder can better construct word-level representation which can be less influenced by the distance and multiple similarity measures pair encoder further addresses the long-document problem. + +![](images/c84616386ec13108939e17631f68c656e68e01524d51d99e124fff2e2cff0b1a.jpg) +Figure 4: Performance of different document length in ACE 2005 test set with end-to-end and all gold settings. + +To verify our hypothesis, we evaluate our model and the CDGM model respectively on the ACE 2005 test set for different document length ranges and the results are shown in Figure 4. According to the curves in the figure, in the all gold setting, it is obvious that our model do not suffer a significant decline as the document lengths grow. Although the CDGM model achieves a similar result with our model when the document lengths range be + +tween 1050 and 1199, our model still shows a great advantage over most document length ranges. Especially, when document length range grows from 300 to 900, the CDGM suffers a drastic decline while our model's performance remains at a high level. In the end-to-end setting, our model shows a more obvious advantage in the long documents over the CDGM model indicating that our method can effectively cope with the long documents in different settings. + +# 7 Conclusion + +In this work, we propose a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution for the first time, as far as we know. By incorporating multiple event features and similarity measures, we are capable of calculating antecedent scores more comprehensively from different aspects. We unleash the potential of employing multiple similarity measures and filtering event features through various ablation experiments and proved that our method can effectively address the long sentence dependency problem. Our model achieves an evident and significant improvement on the ACE 2005 benchmark compared to current state-of-the-art models. In the future work, we aim at exploring the potential of incorporating multiple similarity metrics into different tasks. + +# 8 Limitation + +The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations. Compared to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), introducing multiple metrics to capture flexible cross-sentence event relationships would cause extra computation cost and slightly slow our training. The training parameters of different models can be seen in Table 12. We deprive our model of multiple similarity metrics and denote it as the baseline model. We can see that our model increases $7\%$ parameters compared to CDGM and $0.009\%$ compared to the baseline model. + +
Models#Training Parameters
Baseline110.51M
CDGM(2021)108.57M
Ours110.52M
+ +Table 12: The number of training parameters of different models (# denotes numbers) + +# References + +Jun Araki and Teruko Mitamura. 2015. Joint event trigger identification and event coreference resolution with structured perceptron. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2074-2080, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yubo Chen, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, Daojian Zeng, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multipooling convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 167-176, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Prafulla Kumar Choubey and Ruihong Huang. 2017. Event coreference resolution by iteratively unfolding inter-dependencies among events. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2124-2133, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Vladimir Dobrovolskii. 2021. Word-level coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7670-7675, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hua He and Jimmy Lin. 2016. Pairwise word interaction modeling with deep neural networks for semantic similarity measurement. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 937-948, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. SpanBERT: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77. +Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, Trung Bui, Quan Hung Tran, Franck Dernoncourt, and Walter Chang. 2021. A context-dependent gated module for incorporating symbolic semantics into event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational + +Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3491-3499, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Heeyoung Lee, Marta Recasens, Angel Chang, Mihai Surdeanu, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Joint entity and event coreference resolution across documents. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 489-500, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Jiaxun Cai, Zhuosheng Zhang, Hai Zhao, Gongshen Liu, Linlin Li, and Luo Si. 2018. A unified syntax-aware framework for semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2401-2411. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Hai Zhao, Yiqing Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2019. Dependency or span, end-to-end uniform semantic role labeling. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 6730-6737. AAAI Press. +Zuchao Li, Kevin Parnow, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Incorporating rich syntax information in grammatical error correction. Inf. Process. Manag., 59(3):102891. +Zuchao Li, Hai Zhao, Shexia He, and Jiaxun Cai. 2021. Syntax role for neural semantic role labeling. Comput. Linguistics, 47(3):529-574. +Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, Bin Zhou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. Incomplete utterance rewriting as semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2846-2857, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhengzhong Liu, Jun Araki, Teruko Mitamura, and Edward H. Hovy. 2016. CMU-LTI at KBP 2016 event + +nugget track. In Proceedings of the 2016 Text Analysis Conference, TAC 2016, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 14-15, 2016. NIST. +Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017a. Joint learning for event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 90-101, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017b. Learning antecedent structures for event coreference resolution. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, ICMLA 2017, Cancun, Mexico, December 18-21, 2017, pages 113-118. IEEE. +Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2018. Event coreference resolution: A survey of two decades of research. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, pages 5479-5486. ijcai.org. +Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jialong Tang, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2022. End-to-end neural event coreference resolution. Artif. Intell., 303:103632. +Haoruo Peng, Yangqiu Song, and Dan Roth. 2016. Event detection and co-reference with minimal supervision. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 392-402, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhiyi Song, Ann Bies, Stephanie Strassel, Tom Riese, Justin Mott, Joe Ellis, Jonathan Wright, Seth Kulick, Neville Ryant, and Xiaoyi Ma. 2015. From light to rich ERE: Annotation of entities, relations, and events. In Proceedings of the The 3rd Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation, pages 89-98, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Nikolaos Stylianou and Ioannis P. Vlahavas. 2021. A neural entity coreference resolution review. Expert Syst. Appl., 168:114466. +Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 57:45. +Yifei Yang, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Nested named entity recognition as corpus aware holistic structure parsing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2022, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 12-17, 2022, pages 2472-2482. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020a. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12808. + +Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020b. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. CoRR, abs/2010.12808. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Full Experiment Results + +We report the all four metrics of our experiment results in Table 13. + +# A.2 Ablation Study + +In order to show that adding extra feature filtering FFNN layer is indeed effective instead of simply using additional parameters to help the model fit, we deprive our model of the feature filtering layer and increase the number of training parameters to the same size as before (110.52M parameters). We found that the final AVG score is 90.05 which is 2.05 lower than the model with the feature filtering layer. The result shows that adding extra FFNN is necessary for alleviating the errors. In fact, cleaning the features means distilling reliable signals from noisy features by mapping and activation, and the noisy training method is used to handle the error propagation problem. We believe that by using individual FFNN for each feature, our model can filter reliable signals from noisy features and hence generate more accurate feature representations. + +Secondly, to prove that calculating the similarity for the event-only representation and event feature representation separately is more effective than concatenating the original event-only representation with its feature representation and have a single similarity measures encoding step. We conduct an experiment where the representations are simply concatenated and go through a single similarity measurement. The results showed that the model will suffer a performance drop of 2.03 which sufficiently verified the importance of calculating the similarity measures separately. + +# A.3 Case Study + +To facilitate a more illustrative comparison between our model and CDGM, a case study for the ACE 2005 dataset can be seen in Figure 5. We can see that compared to our model, CDGM additionally clusters "appointed" and "took office" into an event cluster. However, despite these two events having the same event type, they refer to two different persons being appointed as different ministers, and hence they are two different event. By incorporating different similarity measures and event features, we are able to analyse the coreference relation from different aspects, leading to a more accurate result. + +
SettingsModelsMUCB3CEAFeBLANCCoNLLAVG
End-to-endSSED + Supervised(2016)47.1059.9058.7044.4055.2352.53
CDGM(2021)----62.0759.76
Ours59.8368.1765.6754.7664.5662.11
Gold TriggersMSEP(2016)68.0092.9087.4083.2082.7782.88
PAIREDRL(2020b)76.1090.7087.20-84.65-
CDGM(2021)----84.7683.95
Ours79.1892.3788.7986.1886.7886.63
All GoldCDGM(2021)----85.4085.38
Ours87.4495.4892.9993.3891.9792.32
+ +Table 13: Full experiment results with all four metrics + +# Input Document + +PARIS, May 14 ( AFP ) Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Wednesday stressed Qatar ' s role in the Middle East peace process during talks with his Qatari counterpart Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al - Thani in Paris . Shalom told a joint press conference that the tiny Gulf state ' s strong relationship with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister , Mahmud Abbas , could be a boost for peace . " We discussed the Middle East peace process . Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of both parties ( Israel and the Arab world ) to do everything to return to the negotiating table , " Shalom said . " Qatar is a very important country on this issue . I know the special relationship that the Qatari foreign minister has with Abu Mazen , " he said , using Abbas ' s alternative name . The meeting was Shalom ' s first encounter with an Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister on February 27 .Qatar has economic links with Israel without maintaining diplomatic relations , in the face of criticism from other Arab countries .Afterwards Shalom was to fly on to London for talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw . + +# Ours + +# Cluster 1 + +EV1(Type Contact:Meet) : ... process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ... +EV2(Type Contact:Meet) : ... for peace . " We discussed the Middle East peace ... +EV3(Type Contact:Meet): ... Over an hour of talks, we asserted the will of ... +EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ... + +# CDGM's + +# Cluster 1 + +EV1(Type Contact:Meet):...process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ... +EV2(Type Contact:Meet):...for peace."We discussed the Middle East peace ... +EV3(Type Contact:Meet) : ... Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of . +EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ... + +# Cluster 2 + +EV1(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister ... +EV2(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister … + +Figure 5: Case study for ACE 2005 dataset (The event triggers for input document are highlighted in yellow) + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Section 7 limitation + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Section 7 limitation + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Abstract Section 1 Introduction + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Section 4 Experiment + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +Section 4 Experiment + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +Due to space limitation, we do not include these. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +Section 4 Experiment + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +Due to space limitation, we do not include these. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Section 4 Experiment + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Section 4 Experiment + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Section 4 Experiments + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Section 7 Limitation + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +Section 4.2 Model Setup + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +Section 4 Experiments Appendix B Full Experiment Results we report the average results of 3 different runs + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +Section 4.2 Model Setup + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/images.zip b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d117baf42be0b1a7a688d089a3846153c0cb799 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5fb1c38ed45e0c9582e495f6944387cf0198381a96f9e5ead43c4d0a841e561c +size 546905 diff --git a/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/layout.json b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15be8b94034a4deaaaedbdff9905fb98250063f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10992 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 71, + 502, + 88 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 71, + 502, + 88 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 71, + 502, + 88 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning Event-aware Measures for Event Coreference Resolution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yao Yao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Zuchao Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3,*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Hai Zhao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 95, + 408, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2,*}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 110, + 502, + 138 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 110, + 502, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 110, + 502, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 110, + 502, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 110, + 502, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 124, + 501, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 124, + 501, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 124, + 501, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 124, + 501, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence, AI Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 138, + 485, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 138, + 485, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 138, + 485, + 165 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 138, + 485, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "National Engineering Research Center for Multimedia Software, School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, P. R. China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 167, + 462, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 167, + 462, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 167, + 462, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "yaoyao27@sjtu.edu.cn, zcli-charlie@whu.edu.cn," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 181, + 378, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 181, + 378, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 181, + 378, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Researchers are witnessing knowledge-inspired natural language processing shifts the focus from entity-level to event-level, whereas event coreference resolution is one of the core challenges. This paper proposes a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution. On the basis of event but not entity as before, our model learns and integrates multiple representations from both event alone and event pair. For the former, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for more discriminative event representations. For the latter, we consider multiple similarity measures to capture the distinctions of event pairs. Our proposed model achieves new state-of-the-art on the ACE 2005 benchmark, demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 449, + 154, + 461 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 449, + 154, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 449, + 154, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) may be generally conducted on the basis of entities. However, researchers are realizing that it is the form of \"event\" that can more comprehensively depict the knowledge clues in NLP tasks (Lee et al., 2012), among which coreference resolution is a fundamental task for either entity or event. Within-document event coreference resolution aims at finding all event mentions that refer to the same real-world event in a document (Lu and Ng, 2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 290, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 290, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 290, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1 shows an example of event coreference resolution from ACE 2005 (Walker et al., 2006) dataset. In the event coreference resolution, the trigger of an event mention usually refers to the word or phrase that describes the event with the most clarity and the event mention is typically the sentence containing the given trigger. As shown" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 220, + 525, + 301 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 220, + 525, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 220, + 525, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 220, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
... attend his daughter 's wedding(event1) ceremony ... \n... to be taken(event2) home later in the afternoon \nto marry(event1) his eldest daughter ...
EventTypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
event1Life:MarryPositiveAssertedSpecificFuture
event2Movement:TransportPositiveOtherSpecificFuture
", + "image_path": "703d0855533554261eecb8fb13597af4d7a1926106800e68b6eaed07bd1a63b8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 321, + 525, + 344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 321, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 321, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An event coreference resolution example from ACE 2005 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in the given example of Figure 1, the word taken triggers the Transport event. The words wedding and marry trigger the Marry event and these event mentions are coreferent because they both refer to the same real-world Marry event." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared with entity-level coreference resolution, event coreference resolution is more challenging despite their similarity (Lu and Ng, 2018). The main reasons are: (1) an event contains more complex syntactic information than an entity; (2) event coreference resolution suffers from error propagation since it has more upstream tasks; (3) there are far less triggers than entities in a document. Therefore, simply applying entity coreference resolution to event coreference resolution is unsatisfactory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Many works utilize event linguistic features to address above challenges. In most cases, as shown in the above example, events that are coreferent have the same event features, such as type, polarity, and modality. Therefore, many studies (Lu and Ng, 2017b; Yu et al., 2020a; Lai et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) have suggested that incorporating event features into event coreference resolution is effective." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite of the developing trend of utilizing event features, the semantic similarity measures for event coreference resolution are less studied. Most of the works simply used element-wise multiplication to measure the similarity between two spans (Lee et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018, 2021) for entity-level" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 720, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 720, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 720, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author. † Equal contribution. This work was supported by the Key Projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1836222 and 61733011) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2042023kf0133)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13542" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13542-13556" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 417, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NLP tasks. However, incorporating multiple similarity measures interestingly shows helpful in many NLP tasks other than our concerned coreference resolution. For instance, He and Lin (2016) proposed a deep pairwise word interaction model to measure semantic textual similarity between two text pieces, which directly utilized multiple similarity measures for answer selection task and semantic textual similarity measuring task. Liu et al. (2020) designed a U-shaped rewritten network to incorporate multiple similarity measures for context rewriting task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared to entity-level coreference resolution, event-level coreference resolution focuses more on the cross-sentence semantic relationships, which are more complex and flexible. Therefore, to better address the event coreference resolution problem, we need to measure the relationships between events in more diverse and comprehensive ways. Inspired by this, in this paper, we propose a novel model for within-document event coreference resolution which integrates multiple measures from both event alone and event pair representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As far as we know, we are the first to introduce more comprehensive and distinguishing measures for event-level coreference resolution. Concretely, we introduce multiple linguistics-motivated event alone features for event alone representation and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair. By conducting experiments on ACE-2005 benchmark, our proposed model shows a significant improvement and achieves a new state-of-the-art F1 score of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "61.71\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in end-to-end settings and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "92.32\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in all gold settings. Results demonstrate that our model can effectively models the event along features and event pair features, thus surpassing our baseline model and previous state-of-the-art models by large margins." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 600, + 160, + 613 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 600, + 160, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 600, + 160, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entities serve as the fundamental basis for conducting various knowledge-inspired natural language processing (NLP) tasks (Li et al., 2019, 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Stylianou and Vlahavas, 2021). Event coreference resolution, as an integral sub-task of natural language understanding, has gained increasing attention and finds applications in various domains. Most recent works of event coreference resolution can be categorized into two types: (1) joint models; (2) pipeline models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In 2012, Lee et al. (2012) presented a joint model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for cross-document coreference resolution. The model employed linear regression to build entity and event clusters and jointly solved events and entities references by handling both nominal and verbal mentions. Araki and Mitamura (2015) jointly formulated the event trigger extraction and event coreference as a problem of structured prediction to solve the error propagation problem. The authors utilized segment-based decoding with the multiple-beam search for event trigger identification and combined it with the best-first clustering for within-document event coreference resolution. Lu and Ng (2017a) proposed a joint model of trigger detection, event coreference resolution, and event anaphoricity determination. The model employed a structured conditional random field with two types of factors: (1) unary factors; (2) binary and ternary factors. Yu et al. (2020a) presented a Pairwise Representation Learning scheme for cross-document and within-document event coreference problems. The scheme jointly encoded text snippets pair by forwarding concatenated sentences into a transformer encoder and employed structured argument features to argument the pairwise representation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Different from these works, in this paper, we adopt a more straightforward pipeline model conforming to the general idea of the task. Pipeline models mainly have two stages: event detection and event coreference resolution. Traditionally, pipeline models first detect event triggers, arguments, and event features and then apply coreference resolution to the predicted event mentions. Liu et al. (2016) first used bidirectional GRU to detect events and a logistic regression model to classify event features (i.e., realis). The model then employed the latent antecedent tree method to conduct coreference resolution. Choubey and Huang (2017) proposed a novel iterative approach for within-document and cross-document event coreference resolution. The method constructs event clusters gradually by exploiting inter-dependencies among event mentions in two stages. (Lai et al., 2021) employed OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and types. For other event features, the authors trained a simple classification model based on SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020). The model then used a context-dependent gated module (CDGM) to incorporate event features for event coreference resolution and a noisy training method to tackle the error propagation problem. Our work is closely related to (Lai et al., 2021). However, the method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13543" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ologies are different. In our model, we found that a simple FFNN achieves a better result than the gating mechanism which questions the necessity for the CDGM gating method in event coreference resolution. We also innovatively introduce multiple similarity measures for event pair representation. With different ablation experiments and training settings, we verified that our proposed multiple measures learning model is effective and we hope our results can offer a new insight into not only event coreference resolution but also other fundamental tasks in NLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 130, + 270 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 130, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 130, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 162, + 301 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 162, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 162, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Formalization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our model focuses on within-document event coreference resolution. The input of our model is a document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " containing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens. We then use a pre-tained language model to obtain the contextual embeddings of all the tokens in document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X = (x_{1}, \\ldots, x_{n})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the token embeddings. For every word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{token}^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{token}^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote its subword tokens' start and end indices. Similarly, for the event " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{trigger}^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{trigger}^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote its event trigger's start and end indices." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 173, + 485 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 173, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 173, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Model Overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on our formalization, we present a model flow for event coreference resolution. Our model first uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers following the practice of previous work in a given document and classify its event type. Then a novel prompt-based event features prediction model generates every event alone features." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After obtaining the predicted event triggers and event alone features, we use a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution. The model overview is shown in Figure 2. Our model consists of two parts: single mention encoding and multiple measures pair encoding. Firstly, the single mention encoding is employed to construct event-level representation for the given document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Secondly, the multiple measures pair encoding aims at building event pair representations combined with multi-similarity and event alone features. Finally, we use a scoring layer to calculate the antecedent scores for every event pair." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 502, + 97 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 502, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 502, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Trigger Detection and Event Alone Feature Classification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our model uses OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to detect event triggers and their types and designs a model to predict other event alone features. The overview of event alone features prediction model can be seen in Figure 3. Specifically, we first insert special tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle t\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle /t\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " around the event trigger to highlight the target event. By doing so, we can transfer the original event feature prediction problem into a traditional text classification problem. To be more specific, we first use BERT-large-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) to build contextualized representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the input sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which can be defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 289, + 455, + 303 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 289, + 455, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 289, + 455, + 303 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h ^ {r} = \\operatorname {E n c o d e r} (X)", + "image_path": "07861b02247175c552204c7dba4cd40a468a4b2c8c471a1203c5c984151e40a5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 524, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 524, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 524, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then utilize MLP to classify each sentence. The probability distribution of event feature labels is calculated by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 359, + 456, + 374 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 359, + 456, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 359, + 456, + 374 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "M ^ {r} = \\operatorname {P o o l e r} \\left(h ^ {r}\\right))", + "image_path": "9f700902d2b8946bb46e83498372648e50a25ee366471677640dd64257a03018.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 380, + 486, + 395 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 380, + 486, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 380, + 486, + 395 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P (y | X) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\mathbf {M L P} \\left(M ^ {r}\\right)\\right)", + "image_path": "05e29035757b359f212635c7b373d365c9ed7d5499a518252c7014720a8e7e87.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 524, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y \\in Y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes a set of pre-defined event linguistic feature labels. We choose the label with the highest probability score among all the event feature labels." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 509, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 509, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 509, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Event-aware Representation Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our model integrates multiple linguistics-motivated and attention-based feature learning for event alone representations and multiple similarity measures to capture the distinction of event pair." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 470, + 554 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 470, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 470, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.1 Event Alone Representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Event alone representation includes linguistic-aware properties integration and linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature for an event. For linguistic-aware properties in our consideration for this work, type, polarity, modality, genericity and tense, which can be seen in Figure 1, are included. Their properties are used as linguistic-aware event alone features in our model. For feature encoding, we employed the same embedding method used in Lai et al. (2021). Given event " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", our model use a simple embedding layer to obtain its feature representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_i^k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides, considering data-driven feature learning, we introduce a linguistic-agnostic attention-based feature extraction module. Inspired by Dobrovolskii (2021), we proposed an attention based" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13544" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 77, + 526, + 342 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 77, + 526, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 77, + 526, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 77, + 526, + 342 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "309e2291623df1964615ba25b65e8aac2fcf2041ac59f40345d1d5fb58233887.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 355, + 476, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 355, + 476, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 355, + 476, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "method to encode event mentions. We calculate event representations as weighted sum of their triggers' token embeddings, instead of simply averaging them (Lai et al., 2021). To be more specific, for a given word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", its word-level representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated as where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a learnable weight:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 467, + 227, + 510 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 467, + 227, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 467, + 227, + 510 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h _ {i} = \\sum_ {j = S _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t o k e n} ^ {i}} W _ {j} \\cdot x _ {j}", + "image_path": "2de778ffe3128ee99db63cb1f82181135438c5b32be06d103d54c9df0fdecb1b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then use the same attention strategy to compute event representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_j'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a learnable weight:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 574, + 229, + 618 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 574, + 229, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 574, + 229, + 618 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "e _ {i} = \\sum_ {j = S _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} ^ {E _ {t r i g g e r} ^ {i}} W _ {j} ^ {\\prime} \\cdot h _ {j}", + "image_path": "2075bb5d05ee15b7f99402886c9afaac3bebbc36f2e9b105f6a8f6a8cc27be69.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By using this attention based encoder, our model can generate more accurate event representations with a better focus on important tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 227, + 688 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 227, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 227, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.2 Event Pair Representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After obtaining event alone representations, we design a novel multiple similarity measures for measuring the coreference relationship. Given event representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use the following similarity measures to calculate their event pair features:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 524, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linear Similarity The linear similarity between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 412, + 476, + 430 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 412, + 476, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 412, + 476, + 430 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)} = W _ {l i n} ^ {T} [ e _ {i}; e _ {j} ] + b", + "image_path": "0f46f1d44b73d90f179cc4ff5f900e9566ec7106c42f523ec7d85a1908d8d9e0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 524, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 524, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 524, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 524, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{lin}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 524, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a vector of trainable weights, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 524, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 524, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a bias parameter, and [;] is vector concatenation operation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cosine Similarity The cosine similarity between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 519, + 470, + 547 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 519, + 470, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 519, + 470, + 547 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)} = \\frac {e _ {i} \\cdot e _ {j}}{\\| e _ {i} \\| _ {2} \\cdot \\| e _ {j} \\| _ {2}}", + "image_path": "16a73e51e5af79036fe62ef5431c1ace82582d0203ce222dd488c4f8193155cc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 433, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 433, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 433, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 433, + 570 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\| \\cdot \\| _2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 433, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes L2 norm." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Element-wise Similarity The element-wise similarity between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 608, + 455, + 627 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 608, + 455, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 608, + 455, + 627 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} = e _ {i} \\odot e _ {j}", + "image_path": "4c8e47ae074e0c57abfa86b78e4109cf3bed9b26cf47938fe421eeab215ace0e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 506, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 506, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 506, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 506, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\odot" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 506, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes element-wise multiplication." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, we concatenate all three measures mentioned with event representation to build event pair representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is calculated by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 703, + 502, + 722 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 703, + 502, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 703, + 502, + 722 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "e _ {i j} = [ e _ {i}; e _ {j}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ]", + "image_path": "9960d86df0cfd246e1f830e02348941341cf8e1ef9af827cdbc81f9d47c5a0fa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similarity Fusion Layer After obtaining the pair representation, our model then employed a similarity fusion layer to construct the multi-similarity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13545" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 74, + 291, + 379 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 74, + 291, + 379 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 74, + 291, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 74, + 291, + 379 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f8cace487bcb05722806ca751fe3826e15bd70d1f305ae6f71d69721d9dd7b02.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 411 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Overview of event alone features prediction model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "based event pair representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 462, + 223, + 476 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 462, + 223, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 462, + 223, + 476 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s _ {i j} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {e} (e _ {i j})", + "image_path": "8d3aba230bb2f9a775644a33a444e6da6baa77079cf88b5d367ac7bac1d08200.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a feed forward neural network mapping from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{R}^{3\\times d_1 + 2}\\to \\mathbb{R}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By fusing event mentions and similarity measures all together, we are able to generate the event representation which is cleaner and contains richer information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 291, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Feature Filtering Layer Similar to event pair encoding, for each event linguistic feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we too construct multi-similarity based feature pair representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{f}_{ij}^{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 620, + 273, + 641 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 620, + 273, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 620, + 273, + 641 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "F _ {i j} ^ {k} = [ F _ {i} ^ {k}; F _ {j} ^ {k}; S i m _ {l i n} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {c o s} ^ {(i j)}; S i m _ {e l e} ^ {(i j)} ]", + "image_path": "f5a9158d9ed546a7375de70c93e105ed162ca59aa13357ca9072dd88c5efcff4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 652, + 226, + 673 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 652, + 226, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 652, + 226, + 673 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {i j} ^ {k} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {f} (F _ {i j} ^ {k})", + "image_path": "19d68e2fa8abe6d679a424d9b30b7c97d2624770ff689b65c69275c0221d8428.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a feed forward neural network mapping from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{R}^{3\\times d_2 + 2}\\to \\mathbb{R}^l" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Whereas predicted features can be noisy and hence cause the error propagation problem. To address this problem, we propose a feature filtering layer to clean the noisy features and focus on more important event alone features. For each feature" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we employed a feed forward neural network to filter the features." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 367, + 105, + 459, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 367, + 105, + 459, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 367, + 105, + 459, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {i j} ^ {k} = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {c} ^ {k} (\\hat {f} _ {i j} ^ {k})", + "image_path": "04c420ac6dff15347a6941b9c823d9bb4daf2588213972d51e4a87045e707282.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 133, + 524, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 133, + 524, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 133, + 524, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By doing this, we are able to obtain clean event pair feature representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 465, + 181 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 465, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 465, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.3 Coreference Scoring Layer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then concatenate feature pair representations and event pair representation to get the multi-similarity based event-feature pair representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 237, + 473, + 253 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 237, + 473, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 237, + 473, + 253 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {i j} = [ s _ {i j}; f _ {i j} ^ {1}; f _ {i j} ^ {2}; \\dots ; f _ {i j} ^ {m} ]", + "image_path": "a67686d9d1254c6374032a0c321f167eb41c81024165a4ebeb40230df280d293.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, we employ a coreference scoring layer to obtain antecedent scores between event " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and event " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{F}\\mathbf{N}\\mathbf{N}_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " maps from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{R}^{(m + 1)\\times l}\\to \\mathbb{R}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 309, + 458, + 323 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 309, + 458, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 309, + 458, + 323 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A = \\mathbf {F F N N} _ {s} (S _ {i j})", + "image_path": "e4a281c09730e44ffda929cd33bee5764abf9542468f07bdf4970714e058a058.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 390, + 348 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 390, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 390, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 367, + 366 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 367, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 367, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 342, + 378, + 487, + 437 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 378, + 487, + 437 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 378, + 487, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 378, + 487, + 437 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TrainDevTest
#Docs5293040
#Sent19204901676
#Event3342327293
", + "image_path": "2098a282db037236930ffdece6cd5da091e9ba7037092916037b6a22afd34824.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 524, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 524, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 524, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our model on ACE 2005 English dataset (Walker et al., 2006). ACE 2005 dataset adopts a strict notion of event coreference (Song et al., 2015). Specifically, two event mentions are coreferential if and only if \"they had the same agent(s), patient(s), time, and location. We adopt the same split as Chen et al. (2015) and the detailed dataset statistics are shown in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 390, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 390, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 390, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Model Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 525, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 525, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 525, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to have a fair comparison with Lai et al. (2021), we too use SpanBERT-base-cased (Joshi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 329, + 663, + 498, + 749 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 469 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: ACE 2005 dataset statistics (# denotes numbers)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 663, + 498, + 749 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 663, + 498, + 749 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 663, + 498, + 749 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ParametersValue
Epochs150
Batch size16
Task learning rate0.0001
Transformer learning rate5e-5
Hidden size500
", + "image_path": "e10047623ecef9615ab57d47339f2ee958f18d9e2683548adcce5f2593905679.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 756, + 502, + 769 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 756, + 502, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 756, + 502, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Training parameters for ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13546" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 286, + 146 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 286, + 146 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 286, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 286, + 146 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Event Alone Features (k)Noisy Probability (pk)
Type0.00
Polarity0.00
Modality0.15
Genericity0.15
Tense0.25
", + "image_path": "3cbf8fc020b6622c1d59a8d2994fd68d7ee327eb98478429fbafc0ae1d2aa687.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 153, + 289, + 165 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 153, + 289, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 153, + 289, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: noisy training probability for different features" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 290, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2020) as the base Transformer encoder. We use AVG and CoNLL as our evaluation metrics. The AVG is the average F-score of four metrics (Lu and Ng, 2018): MUC, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{B}^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CEAF}_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and BLANC. The CoNLL score is the average of first three metrics. All models are trained for 150 epochs. The detailed training parameters can be seen in Table 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to Lai et al. (2021), simply training the model using predicted event alone features may hurt the performance since the prediction of test set contains more errors than that of the train set. Inspired by Lai et al. (2021), we too introduce the noisy training method. Specifically, for every predicted event alone features " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we randomly assign a new label with a probability of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". According to Lai et al. (2021), the probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 284, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " varies inversely with the discrepancy between the train and test accuracies. Our noisy training probability for different features can be seen in Table 3. The probability value is positively correlated with the accuracy of the feature prediction. The main idea behind this is that for event feature that is more prone to prediction errors, we need a higher replacement probability to eliminate the noise propagation problem. By using the noisy training method, our model can be more sensitive to noisy features and hence mitigate the error propagation problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 202, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 202, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 202, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Results and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 290, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 290, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 290, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To probe deeper into the effect of different stages in our pipeline model. We employ our model in three settings: end-to-end, gold triggers, and all gold. In end-to-end, we use predicted triggers and predicted features. In gold trigger setting, given gold triggers we predict event features and then apply event coreference. In all gold setting, we utilize gold triggers and gold features to have a better understanding on coreference stage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 221, + 727 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 221, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 221, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3.1 Event Feature Prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The feature prediction model formulates the event feature prediction problem as a traditional text classification problem by using special tokens to high-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "light event triggers. The details can be seen in the appendix. Compared with the joint classification model proposed used by Lai et al. (2021), our model achieves obvious improvement on most event features. According to Lin et al. (2020), the event detection type-F1 score of OneIE on ACE 2005 test set is 74.7. Table 4 shows the accuracy of different event features." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Table 4, we can see that comparing to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), our model has a significant advantage on most of the features. We speculate that by introducing special tokens, we are able to maintain more semantic information than simply using the average of the trigger's token embeddings as the classification input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 393, + 296 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 393, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 393, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3.2 End-to-end" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The end-to-end event coreference result can be seen in Table 5. We use OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) to extract event triggers and their types. We then formulate the event feature classification problem as a traditional text classification problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the Table 5, we can see that our model achieves the state of the art on ACE 2005 dataset. Although Peng et al. (2016) used cross-validation to utilize more training data, our model still shows a great improvement. Also, as a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM (Lai et al., 2021) by more than 2 points on AVG, which shows the effectiveness of our proposed pipeline model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 515, + 499 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 515, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 515, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3.3 Gold Triggers and Predicted Features" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 524, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to have a thorough comparison with the CDGM model, we also perform our model on ground-truth triggers and predicted event alone features. The results are shown in Table 6. We achieve an AVG score of 86.63 which significantly improve the CDGM performance by more than 2.5 points. The result sufficiently proves the advantage of our proposed event alone feature classification and multi-similarity coreference model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 379, + 646 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 379, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 379, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3.4 All Gold" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To have a better focus on the event coreference stage of our model, we conduct our experiments on all gold setting in which we use ground-truth triggers and ground-truth features. Table 7 shows the overall result. In all gold setting, we use two training strategy: noisy training and clean training. In clean training strategy, all event features are not randomly replaced. We can see that by using original clean features, we improve the noisy training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13547" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 145, + 68, + 448, + 146 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 68, + 448, + 146 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 68, + 448, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 68, + 448, + 146 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsEvent Features
TypePolarityModalityGenericityTense
CDGM(2021)train99.999.999.999.998.4
test95.398.888.487.276.3
Ourstrain99.999.999.499.999.7
test95.398.689.290.377.6
", + "image_path": "4a4681f261b3ebd79d8b2f48914516777e0a84c900f72d2ddd52a0b4c8fba143.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 174, + 291, + 315 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 153, + 413, + 166 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 153, + 413, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 153, + 413, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Results of event feature prediction on ACE-2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 174, + 291, + 315 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 174, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 174, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
cross-validation
SSED(2016)+Supervised55.2352.50
+MSEP53.8051.40
test data
CDGM(2021)+Simple57.5554.79
(all features)+CDGM58.9956.32
+Simple +Noise60.4357.85
+CDGM +Noise62.0759.76
Ours+Noise64.5662.11
(all features)
", + "image_path": "fe834b4fff7a27d9ddba0adf1c6cefd780e9cdda2ab1779bfed359af327c6357.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 344, + 289, + 425 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 322, + 263, + 333 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 322, + 263, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 322, + 263, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: End-to-end results on ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 344, + 289, + 425 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 344, + 289, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 344, + 289, + 425 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
PAIREDRL(2020b)84.65-
MSEP(2016)80.3782.90
CDGM(2021)+Simple75.3274.94
(all features)+CDGM +Noise84.7683.95
Ours+Noise86.7886.63
(all features)
", + "image_path": "c4a4ef771d71529fe671b0d1a464f197bf395f3496470f59a4dd2c0001ce9884.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "strategy by near 5.5 points. As a direct comparison, our model outperforms the CDGM without noisy training method and reaches the state-of-the-art of 92.32. Such significant improvements demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating multiple similarity measures and attention based encoding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 556, + 291, + 635 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 433, + 267, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 433, + 267, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 433, + 267, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Gold triggers results on ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 556, + 291, + 635 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 556, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 556, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsCoNLLAVG
CDGM(2021)+Simple85.7585.40
(all features)+CDGM87.9088.30
+CDGM +Noise85.4085.38
Ours+Noise87.1086.83
(all features)-91.9792.32
", + "image_path": "69985822af4bf20291725fc6e6dbbe6062bf550232ed6dea51f8b4f7c6e621bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 194, + 693 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 194, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 194, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Further Exploration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 163, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 163, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 163, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Gated or Not?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to Lai et al. (2021), they propose Context Dependent Gated Module (CDGM) to obtain the event features. CDGM selectively distill input event features using a gating mecha" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 526, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 526, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 526, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "nism. Therefore, to have a thorough comparison between CDGM and our proposed feature filtering layer, we introduce the CDGM method into our model. More specifically, after calculating the multi-similarity based feature pair representations, we employ CDGM instead of feature filtering layer to clean the event feature pair. We conduct experiments on all three settings and Table 8 shows the comparison result." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 328, + 309, + 501, + 374 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 643, + 258, + 655 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 643, + 258, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 643, + 258, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: All gold results on ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 309, + 501, + 374 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 309, + 501, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 309, + 501, + 374 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SettingsAVGΔ
CDGMOurs
End-to-end61.3862.11+0.73
Gold triggers85.7286.63+0.91
All gold92.0592.32+0.27
", + "image_path": "3f32e9188b112f49cad3c8965f8ce0e973ab6fe06d4d55a30ebea6e15efe59b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 524, + 406 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 524, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 524, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Results of using gated strategy and simple strategy with different settings on ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Table 8, we can see that feature filtering layer outperforms the CDGM in all three settings. The largest improvement is made in gold trigger setting which reaches 0.91 points. Whereas, in all gold scenario, CDGM reaches a similar result to our model with a relatively small margin of 0.27 points. We speculate that in all gold setting, the ground-truth event features are already clean and hence filtering features exerts limited influence on the overall performance. When using ground truth triggers, all event features are predicted and therefore containing errors. In this case, using feature filtering layer can evolve our model to its greatest potential. In conclusion, the result shows that, compared to CDGM, simply using a feed forward neural network can reserve more information and hence achieves obvious improvement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 413, + 672 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 413, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 413, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Attention or Not?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To have a better analysis on our proposed attention based encoder, we conduct ablation experiments. In the experiments, all models simply concatenate noisy feature pair representation together without any filtering operation (e.g., CDGM; feature filtering layer). We denote this concatenate strategy as simple. To be more specific, We treat the CDGM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13548" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "model (Lai et al., 2021) without using cleaned features as the baseline which treats event representations as the average of their triggers' token embedding. To have a fair comparison, we also use noisy feature representations by stripping the feature filtering layer and multi-similarity measures off our model and simply keep the attention based encoder. The overall results are shown in Table 9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 187, + 268, + 274 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 187, + 268, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 187, + 268, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 187, + 268, + 274 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsAVG
baseline
CDGM(2021)+ Average + Simple85.40
Ours+ Attention + Simple90.45
", + "image_path": "7480a0ab16f01db0bb5e7a00037e6f6996ee3b561e6e9a95509607539855ee7c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All models use the same event linguistic features. From Table 9, we can conclude that our model yields an absolute improvement of 5.05 points in AVG score. The great performance sufficiently proves the superiority of our attention based encoder. By introducing learnable weights to calculate the word-level and event-level representations, we believe that it can help our model focus on more critical tokens instead of simply averaging them. In a nutshell, our model acquires the ability to grab the core information for the given event through using an attention based encoder and hence achieves a better result." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 209, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 209, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 209, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.3 Multi-similarity or Not?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also conduct ablation experiments for the purpose of understanding the impact of different similarity measures. In the experiment, we deprive our model of multiple similarity measures pair encoder and similarity fusion layer and return to the original method which simply uses element-wise similarity to capture the relevance between two events. We treat the deprived model as the baseline. We then introducing the similarity fusion layer to generate more similarity-aware event pair representations. On the basis of fusion layer, we respectively add cosine similarity and linear similarity to better analyse the different influence they exert on the overall results. Finally, we train our full model on multiple similarity measures. The detailed results can be seen in Table 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We can see clearly that our model outperforms the baseline model significantly by 1.82 points on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 510, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 289, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 289, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 289, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Results of using attention based encoder with all gold settings on ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 510, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 510, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 510, + 181 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsAVGΔ
-wo fusion layer
Baselineelement-wise similarity)90.50-
-wo fusion layer
Element-wise similarity90.92+0.42
Cosine Similarity89.20-1.30
Linear Similarity90.72+0.22
Element-wise + Cosine Similarity91.07+0.57
Element-wise + Linear Similarity91.73+1.23
Multi-similarity92.32+1.82
", + "image_path": "1444559bfc774d386728ee99167326720311b0d825aa4dfe1b3cf223ce9ce071.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 235, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 235, + 526, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 235, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the AVG score. When combined with element-wise similarity, cosine similarity achieves a relatively small improvement compared to linear similarity and even suffers a minor decrease when used alone. We speculate that the main reason is that cosine similarity is more sensitive to the angle between two vectors instead of their lengths. Whereas, with the help of trainable weights, linear similarity can better capture the relevance between events by learning different perspectives of vectors. Nevertheless, our model still shows a great improvement when using all three similarity measures indicating that different similarity measures specialist in different aspects. As a result, we believe that using multiple similarity measures can help the model better capture the similarity between two events from more diverse and comprehensive aspects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 395, + 489 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 395, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 395, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.4 Noisy or Not?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To better analyze the usefulness of the noisy training method under different circumstances, we compare the noisy trained models and clean trained models under all three settings. The overall results are shown in Table 11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 321, + 570, + 507, + 642 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 524, + 213 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 524, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 524, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Results of using different similarity measures with all gold setting on ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 570, + 507, + 642 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 570, + 507, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 570, + 507, + 642 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SettingsAVGΔ
CleanNoisy
End-to-end57.0062.11+5.11
Gold triggers78.8786.63+7.76
All gold92.3286.83-5.49
", + "image_path": "c9887ae85e5cb8ab4bca2db448680481f1e8436eae519f1185cab6bc60d93609.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 674 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Results of using noisy features and clean features with different settings on ACE 2005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We denote the models which replace the event feature labels randomly as noisy and clean for models which do not. Compared to the end-to-end setting, the model under the gold trigger setting achieves a much more apparent improvement when using the noisy training method. We presume the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13549" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "main reason is that since the event trigger detection is far from perfect, the predicted event features would be more accurate when given the ground-truth triggers. With fewer error propagation problems, our model is able to uncover the deeper connections between event features. Similar to Lai et al. (2021), when using the all gold setting, however, our model suffers a decline of 5.49 points on the AVG score. Since all event features are clean in the all gold setting, our model do not need noisy training to tackle error event features and on the contrary, simply using clean features can already boost the performance to the most degree." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 251, + 269 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 251, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 251, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.5 Performance on Different Length" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By introducing attention based encoder and multiple measures pair encoder, we believe that we can accredit the great improvement of our model to better performances in long documents. Compared to CDGM, our attention based encoder can better construct word-level representation which can be less influenced by the distance and multiple similarity measures pair encoder further addresses the long-document problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 403, + 296, + 589 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 403, + 296, + 589 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 403, + 296, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 403, + 296, + 589 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c84616386ec13108939e17631f68c656e68e01524d51d99e124fff2e2cff0b1a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Performance of different document length in ACE 2005 test set with end-to-end and all gold settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To verify our hypothesis, we evaluate our model and the CDGM model respectively on the ACE 2005 test set for different document length ranges and the results are shown in Figure 4. According to the curves in the figure, in the all gold setting, it is obvious that our model do not suffer a significant decline as the document lengths grow. Although the CDGM model achieves a similar result with our model when the document lengths range be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tween 1050 and 1199, our model still shows a great advantage over most document length ranges. Especially, when document length range grows from 300 to 900, the CDGM suffers a drastic decline while our model's performance remains at a high level. In the end-to-end setting, our model shows a more obvious advantage in the long documents over the CDGM model indicating that our method can effectively cope with the long documents in different settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 219, + 381, + 232 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 219, + 381, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 219, + 381, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose a multiple measures learning model for event coreference resolution for the first time, as far as we know. By incorporating multiple event features and similarity measures, we are capable of calculating antecedent scores more comprehensively from different aspects. We unleash the potential of employing multiple similarity measures and filtering event features through various ablation experiments and proved that our method can effectively address the long sentence dependency problem. Our model achieves an evident and significant improvement on the ACE 2005 benchmark compared to current state-of-the-art models. In the future work, we aim at exploring the potential of incorporating multiple similarity metrics into different tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 379, + 483 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 379, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 379, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Limitation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations. Compared to CDGM (Lai et al., 2021), introducing multiple metrics to capture flexible cross-sentence event relationships would cause extra computation cost and slightly slow our training. The training parameters of different models can be seen in Table 12. We deprive our model of multiple similarity metrics and denote it as the baseline model. We can see that our model increases " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parameters compared to CDGM and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.009\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to the baseline model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 323, + 653, + 505, + 713 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 653, + 505, + 713 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 653, + 505, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 653, + 505, + 713 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Models#Training Parameters
Baseline110.51M
CDGM(2021)108.57M
Ours110.52M
", + "image_path": "de3e71b278d7cff93c0c59397aa0ceb92cc2655ac5ff065d73fa4d8165b1c67b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 744 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: The number of training parameters of different models (# denotes numbers)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13550" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jun Araki and Teruko Mitamura. 2015. Joint event trigger identification and event coreference resolution with structured perceptron. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2074-2080, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yubo Chen, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, Daojian Zeng, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multipooling convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 167-176, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 291, + 352 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 291, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 291, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prafulla Kumar Choubey and Ruihong Huang. 2017. Event coreference resolution by iteratively unfolding inter-dependencies among events. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2124-2133, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 468, + 291, + 536 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 468, + 291, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 468, + 291, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vladimir Dobrovolskii. 2021. Word-level coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7670-7675, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hua He and Jimmy Lin. 2016. Pairwise word interaction modeling with deep neural networks for semantic similarity measurement. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 937-948, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. SpanBERT: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, Trung Bui, Quan Hung Tran, Franck Dernoncourt, and Walter Chang. 2021. A context-dependent gated module for incorporating symbolic semantics into event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3491-3499, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 526, + 204 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 526, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 526, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Heeyoung Lee, Marta Recasens, Angel Chang, Mihai Surdeanu, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Joint entity and event coreference resolution across documents. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 489-500, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 526, + 379 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 526, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 526, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Jiaxun Cai, Zhuosheng Zhang, Hai Zhao, Gongshen Liu, Linlin Li, and Luo Si. 2018. A unified syntax-aware framework for semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2401-2411. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 526, + 499 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 526, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 526, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Hai Zhao, Yiqing Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2019. Dependency or span, end-to-end uniform semantic role labeling. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 6730-6737. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 526, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zuchao Li, Kevin Parnow, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Incorporating rich syntax information in grammatical error correction. Inf. Process. Manag., 59(3):102891." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zuchao Li, Hai Zhao, Shexia He, and Jiaxun Cai. 2021. Syntax role for neural semantic role labeling. Comput. Linguistics, 47(3):529-574." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, Bin Zhou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. Incomplete utterance rewriting as semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2846-2857, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengzhong Liu, Jun Araki, Teruko Mitamura, and Edward H. Hovy. 2016. CMU-LTI at KBP 2016 event" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13551" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "nugget track. In Proceedings of the 2016 Text Analysis Conference, TAC 2016, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 14-15, 2016. NIST." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 289, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017a. Joint learning for event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 90-101, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 289, + 248 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 289, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 289, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2017b. Learning antecedent structures for event coreference resolution. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, ICMLA 2017, Cancun, Mexico, December 18-21, 2017, pages 113-118. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 289, + 324 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 289, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 289, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. 2018. Event coreference resolution: A survey of two decades of research. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, pages 5479-5486. ijcai.org." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 289, + 368 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 289, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 289, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jialong Tang, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2022. End-to-end neural event coreference resolution. Artif. Intell., 303:103632." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 289, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 289, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 289, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoruo Peng, Yangqiu Song, and Dan Roth. 2016. Event detection and co-reference with minimal supervision. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 392-402, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 289, + 543 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 289, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 289, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyi Song, Ann Bies, Stephanie Strassel, Tom Riese, Justin Mott, Joe Ellis, Jonathan Wright, Seth Kulick, Neville Ryant, and Xiaoyi Ma. 2015. From light to rich ERE: Annotation of entities, relations, and events. In Proceedings of the The 3rd Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation, pages 89-98, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 289, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 289, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 289, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikolaos Stylianou and Ioannis P. Vlahavas. 2021. A neural entity coreference resolution review. Expert Syst. Appl., 168:114466." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 289, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 57:45." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 289, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yifei Yang, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Nested named entity recognition as corpus aware holistic structure parsing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2022, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 12-17, 2022, pages 2472-2482. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020a. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12808." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2020b. Paired representation learning for event and entity coreference. CoRR, abs/2010.12808." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13552" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 212, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 212, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 212, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Full Experiment Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 290, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 290, + 136 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 290, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report the all four metrics of our experiment results in Table 13." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 145, + 168, + 158 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 145, + 168, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 145, + 168, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to show that adding extra feature filtering FFNN layer is indeed effective instead of simply using additional parameters to help the model fit, we deprive our model of the feature filtering layer and increase the number of training parameters to the same size as before (110.52M parameters). We found that the final AVG score is 90.05 which is 2.05 lower than the model with the feature filtering layer. The result shows that adding extra FFNN is necessary for alleviating the errors. In fact, cleaning the features means distilling reliable signals from noisy features by mapping and activation, and the noisy training method is used to handle the error propagation problem. We believe that by using individual FFNN for each feature, our model can filter reliable signals from noisy features and hence generate more accurate feature representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Secondly, to prove that calculating the similarity for the event-only representation and event feature representation separately is more effective than concatenating the original event-only representation with its feature representation and have a single similarity measures encoding step. We conduct an experiment where the representations are simply concatenated and go through a single similarity measurement. The results showed that the model will suffer a performance drop of 2.03 which sufficiently verified the importance of calculating the similarity measures separately." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 564, + 151, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 564, + 151, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 564, + 151, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To facilitate a more illustrative comparison between our model and CDGM, a case study for the ACE 2005 dataset can be seen in Figure 5. We can see that compared to our model, CDGM additionally clusters \"appointed\" and \"took office\" into an event cluster. However, despite these two events having the same event type, they refer to two different persons being appointed as different ministers, and hence they are two different event. By incorporating different similarity measures and event features, we are able to analyse the coreference relation from different aspects, leading to a more accurate result." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13553" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 102, + 106, + 492, + 212 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 106, + 492, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 106, + 492, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 106, + 492, + 212 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SettingsModelsMUCB3CEAFeBLANCCoNLLAVG
End-to-endSSED + Supervised(2016)47.1059.9058.7044.4055.2352.53
CDGM(2021)----62.0759.76
Ours59.8368.1765.6754.7664.5662.11
Gold TriggersMSEP(2016)68.0092.9087.4083.2082.7782.88
PAIREDRL(2020b)76.1090.7087.20-84.65-
CDGM(2021)----84.7683.95
Ours79.1892.3788.7986.1886.7886.63
All GoldCDGM(2021)----85.4085.38
Ours87.4495.4892.9993.3891.9792.32
", + "image_path": "955165a84e7384cbd94fc3460bbcddd0dc94bc20bd67214a446f70e8f1705733.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 219, + 404, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 219, + 404, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 219, + 404, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: Full experiment results with all four metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 333, + 180, + 343 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 333, + 180, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 333, + 180, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input Document" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 348, + 483, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 348, + 483, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 348, + 483, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PARIS, May 14 ( AFP ) Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Wednesday stressed Qatar ' s role in the Middle East peace process during talks with his Qatari counterpart Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al - Thani in Paris . Shalom told a joint press conference that the tiny Gulf state ' s strong relationship with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister , Mahmud Abbas , could be a boost for peace . \" We discussed the Middle East peace process . Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of both parties ( Israel and the Arab world ) to do everything to return to the negotiating table , \" Shalom said . \" Qatar is a very important country on this issue . I know the special relationship that the Qatari foreign minister has with Abu Mazen , \" he said , using Abbas ' s alternative name . The meeting was Shalom ' s first encounter with an Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister on February 27 .Qatar has economic links with Israel without maintaining diplomatic relations , in the face of criticism from other Arab countries .Afterwards Shalom was to fly on to London for talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 457, + 159, + 466 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 457, + 159, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 457, + 159, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 475, + 138, + 483 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 475, + 138, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 475, + 138, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cluster 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 494, + 345, + 527 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 494, + 345, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 494, + 345, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 494, + 345, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV1(Type Contact:Meet) : ... process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 503, + 345, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 503, + 345, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 503, + 345, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV2(Type Contact:Meet) : ... for peace . \" We discussed the Middle East peace ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 511, + 335, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 511, + 335, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 511, + 335, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV3(Type Contact:Meet): ... Over an hour of talks, we asserted the will of ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 519, + 342, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 519, + 342, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 519, + 342, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 551, + 167, + 561 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 551, + 167, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 551, + 167, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CDGM's" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 569, + 135, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 569, + 135, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 569, + 135, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cluster 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 589, + 342, + 622 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 589, + 341, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 589, + 341, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 589, + 341, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV1(Type Contact:Meet):...process during talks with his Qatari counterpart ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 598, + 342, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 598, + 342, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 598, + 342, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV2(Type Contact:Meet):...for peace.\"We discussed the Middle East peace ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 606, + 328, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 606, + 328, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 606, + 328, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV3(Type Contact:Meet) : ... Over an hour of talks , we asserted the will of ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 614, + 339, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 614, + 339, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 614, + 339, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV4(Type Contact:Meet): ... The meeting was Shalom's first encounter with ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 643, + 136, + 652 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 643, + 136, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 643, + 136, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cluster 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 661, + 422, + 679 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 661, + 389, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 661, + 389, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 661, + 389, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV1(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... with the recently appointed Palestinian prime minister ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 670, + 422, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 670, + 422, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 670, + 422, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EV2(Type Personnel:Start-Position) : ... Arab counterpart since he took office as Israel ' s foreign minister …" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 719, + 514, + 731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 719, + 514, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 719, + 514, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Case study for ACE 2005 dataset (The event triggers for input document are highlighted in yellow)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13554" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 178, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 178, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 178, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 7 limitation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 158, + 177, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 158, + 177, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 158, + 177, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 7 limitation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 228, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 228, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 228, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract Section 1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 175, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 175, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 175, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 306, + 186, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 306, + 186, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 306, + 186, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 304, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 304, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 304, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Due to space limitation, we do not include these." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 419, + 186, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 419, + 186, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 419, + 186, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 304, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 304, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 304, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Due to space limitation, we do not include these." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 532, + 186, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 532, + 186, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 532, + 186, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 623, + 186, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 623, + 186, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 623, + 186, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 179, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 179, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 661, + 179, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 712, + 180, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 712, + 180, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 712, + 180, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 7 Limitation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13555" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 198, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 198, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 198, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.2 Model Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 161, + 524, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 161, + 524, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 161, + 524, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4 Experiments Appendix B Full Experiment Results we report the average results of 3 different runs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 525, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 238, + 198, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 238, + 198, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 238, + 198, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.2 Model Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 260, + 522, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 260, + 522, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 260, + 522, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 128, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 128, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 128, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 328, + 148, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 328, + 148, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 328, + 148, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 350, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 350, + 524, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 350, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 391, + 148, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 391, + 148, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 391, + 148, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 524, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 524, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 524, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 454, + 148, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 454, + 148, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 454, + 148, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 520, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 520, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 520, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 491, + 148, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 491, + 148, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 491, + 148, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 513, + 524, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 513, + 524, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 513, + 524, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 539, + 148, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 539, + 148, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 539, + 148, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13556" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_content_list.json b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d3abe29fa6a1927170a44601782358ccf02a2f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1911 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 147, + 79, + 850, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yifu Gao $^{1}$ , Yongquan He $^{2}$ , Zhigang Kan $^{1}$ , Yi Han $^{3}$ , Linbo Qiao $^{1}$ , Dongsheng Li $^{1*}$", + "bbox": [ + 156, + 124, + 850, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ National Key Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Computing, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 143, + 768, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Meituan, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 394, + 175, + 606, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 College of Meteorology and Oceanography, National University of Defense Technology {gaoyifu, kanzhigang13, hanyi12, qiao.linbo, dsli}@nudt.edu.cn heyongquan@meituan.com", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 192, + 860, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Temporal knowledge graph completion that predicts missing links for incomplete temporal knowledge graphs (TKG) is gaining increasing attention. Most existing works have achieved good results by incorporating time information into static knowledge graph embedding methods. However, they ignore the contextual nature of the TKG structure, i.e., query-specific subgraph contains both structural and temporal neighboring facts. This paper presents the SToKE, a novel method that employs the pre-trained language model (PLM) to learn joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings. Specifically, we first construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query to enable PLMs to handle the TKG, which can be seen as a structured event sequence recording query-relevant structural and temporal contexts. We then propose a novel temporal embedding and structural matrix to learn the time information and structural dependencies of facts in EET. Finally, we formulate TKG completion as a mask prediction problem by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained language models. Experimental results on three widely used datasets show the superiority of our model.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 275, + 460, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 665, + 258, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge graphs have facilitated many real-world applications, including question answering, dialogue systems and speech recognition (Ji et al., 2022). The rapidly growing facts on the knowledge graph often show dynamic relations or interactions of entities along the timeline, which creates the need for introducing the concept of temporal knowledge graph (TKG). Such TKGs often suffer from incompleteness due to their own dynamic features. Therefore, the temporal knowledge graph completion (TKGC) task that predicts missing links across these TKGs is gaining increasing attention from researchers (Boschee et al., 2015).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 690, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/373659d4c11eb3b3e88fcde701d9a1cf558a4b0aae9f688194fe4e6e748259df.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Part (a) shows an example of a query-specific subgraph, which consists of the facts where the query's subject China participates at the same or different timestamps. Part (b) shows the event evolutionary tree converted from the subgraph in Part (a)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 250, + 877, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent works on the TKGC task have primarily focused on static knowledge graph embedding (KGE) methods. They extend KGE models by encoding time information into conventional score functions in different ways (Jiang et al., 2016; García-Durán et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020b; Lacroix et al., 2020; Messner et al., 2022), called temporal knowledge graph embedding (TKGE). Although TKGE methods outperform static KGE on this task, they mostly fail to consider the rich contextual information related to the query in the TKG structure.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 531, + 884, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As a subgraph of TKG shown in Figure 1(a), when facing the query (China, Sign formal agreements,?, 2014-12-30), its relevant contexts include both concurrent facts within the same timestamp (solid red) and temporal adjacency facts at different timestamps (dashed blue). The structural contexts (China, Intend to cooperate, Japan, 2014-12-30) and (China, Engage in diplomatic cooperation, Iran, 2014-12-30) suggests that China may sign formal agreements with either Japan or Iran. Moreover, the temporal contexts illustrate that China has been expressing intent to cooperate with Japan for some time, making Japan a more reasonable", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding Author", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 290, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "417", + "bbox": [ + 484, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 417-430 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 236, + 945, + 759, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "answer to the query. Hence, learning knowledge embeddings that could effectively capture query-relevant structural and temporal contextual information facilitates the inference of missing facts. However, existing methods either only encode temporal adjacent facts residing in the query's local neighborhood (Jung et al., 2021), or only focus on concurrent events within the same timestamp and integrate entity representations of different timestamps with additional recurrence or attention mechanisms (Wu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). They fail to encode two query-relevant contexts simultaneously only using graph neural network variants, which requires us to solve the above problem by introducing a new architecture. Recent advances in pre-trained language models (PLMs) are able to learn word representations and graph representations through distinct structured contexts (Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a). Intuitively, PLMs can capture contextual meanings of entity and relation representations along joint structural and temporal dimensions.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 490, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inspired by this, we propose the SToKE, a novel BERT-based model to learn knowledge embeddings with joint structural and temporal contexts. Another challenging problem is to draw connections of query-specific substructure to natural language sentences. To handle this issue, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query as shown in Figure 1(b). The EET represents the temporal evolution in the order from \"Root\" to \"Crown\", where each layer corresponds to different timestamps. Facts occurring at the same timestamp constitute the \"Branches\" of this layer, and query's subject entity China acts as a \"Trunk\" connecting different structural and temporal adjacent facts. EET is essentially a structured event sequence that helps PLMs better understand contextual information in the query-specific subgraph. Besides, we add a novel temporal embedding in the initial embeddings to ensure the sequential order of facts appearing in the EET. Considering the knowledge noise problem caused by introducing query-relevant contexts with different dimensions, we present a structural matrix to restrict the structure dependencies between facts. Overall, this paper makes the following contributions:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 445, + 489, + 846 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1) We propose SToKE, a novel model for the TKGC task that learns knowledge embeddings in terms of joint structural and temporal contexts via the pre-trained language model.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "2) To enable BERT-like PLMs to handle the query-specific subgraph, we propose an event evolution tree that transforms structural and temporal contexts into a structured event sequence. The temporal order and structural dependencies of facts in the EET are limited by adopting the temporal embedding and structural matrix.", + "3) We formulate the TKGC task as a mask prediction task by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained BERT models.", + "4) Our SToKE outperforms the state-of-the-art methods over three widely used datasets, which demonstrates our model's superiority." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 882, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 307, + 663, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Knowledge Graph Embedding", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 332, + 794, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KGE aims to map the entities and relations into continuous vector space and score the plausibility of a triple, which can be roughly divided into distance-based models, semantic matching models and neural network models. Distance-based models measure the plausibility of a triple as the distance between the relation-translated subject and object entity embeddings, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) and its various extensions (Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015). Especially, RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) treats each relation as a rotation from the subject to the object. Semantic matching models measure the plausibility of a fact by mining the underlying semantics between entity and relation embeddings, e.g., DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016) and SimpleE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018). They employ a bilinear score function that represents relations as linear transformations acting on entity embeddings. Besides, some models incorporate neural networks to encode the semantics of knowledge graphs. ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and ConvKB (Nguyen et al., 2018) apply convolutional layers to model interactions between entities in the scoring function. Several methods (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Nathani et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020b) adopt variants of graph neural network to contextualize entity embedding with the corresponding neighborhood structure. However, above methods are not applicable to TKGs due to their ignorance of time information.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 355, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 865, + 875, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, some attempts have extended the static KG embedding methods by incorporating time", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "418", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "information to improve the performance. Some TKGE models are extended from distance-based models (Jiang et al., 2016; Dasgupta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020a,b; Chen et al., 2022; Messner et al., 2022). They encode time information into a translation-based score function in different ways. ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021) builds on RotatE, representing time-relation pairs with rotation and scaling in the embedding space. Some models are temporal extensions of semantic matching methods. TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018) adopts recurrent neural networks (Cho et al., 2014) to learn time-aware representations of relations. DE-SimplE (Goel et al., 2020) utilizes diachronic entity embeddings to represent entities at different time steps. Furthermore, TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and TimeLowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022) perform a tensor decomposition involving the timestamp embedding with distinct embedding representations and product operators. While successfully extending to TKGs, these models ignore the rich contextual information in the graph structure.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another line of models focuses on the TKG structure information based on variants of graph neural networks (GNN). TeMP (Wu et al., 2020) and ST-ConvKB (Zhang et al., 2021) regard TKG as a sequence of KGs corresponding to different timestamps and use GNN variants and sequential models to generate dynamic entity representations. T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) attentively aggregates query-relevant information from each entity's local temporal adjacent facts with its temporal GNN. Moreover, SPA (Wang et al., 2022c) utilizes neural architecture search to design data-specific GNN architectures for different datasets. Other similar works (Jin et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2022) are designed for the extrapolation problem rather than TKGC, and EvoExplore (Zhang et al., 2022) focuses on local and global structure evolutions using the temporal point process. However, above methods cannot encode structural and temporal contexts simultaneously using only GNN variants. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to handle two query-relevant contexts simultaneously with PLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 457, + 489, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Language Model and Knowledge Graph", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 845, + 473, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint pre-trained language models (PLMs) and knowledge graph approaches can be broadly classified into two categories: one that introduces knowl", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "edge from KGs to enhance PLMs on NLP downstream tasks (Zhang et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2019; He et al., 2020). However, they freeze the knowledge embedding during training PLMs, which are not real models for learning knowledge representations. To solve the above problem, K-BERT (Liu et al., 2020) and CoLAKE (Sun et al., 2020) combine entities and relations in the form of tokens with text, which are jointly fed into the PLMs. The other is to learn the knowledge embeddings from natural language texts through PLMs, called text-based methods, which are orthogonal to our work. Recent methods learn to generate entity embeddings with PLMs from entity text descriptions (Zhang et al., 2020c; Yao et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021a). Specially, KEPLER (Wang et al., 2021b) encodes textual entity descriptions with jointly optimizing KE and language modeling objectives. LMKE (Wang et al., 2022b) and SimKGC (Wang et al., 2022a) introduce efficient contrastive learning to improve the performance of text-based methods. But none of these models consider the temporal aspect of knowledge graphs. ECOLA (Han et al., 2022) uses PLMs to enhance temporal knowledge graph embeddings with temporally relevant texts. Nevertheless, not all facts have summary texts in the practical application. Besides, above approaches focus on the combination of structured knowledge and unstructured text, which is fundamentally different from our method focusing on the contextual information of the TKG subgraph.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Notations and Task Definition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 596, + 801, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A temporal knowledge graph (TKG) $\\mathcal{G}$ can be viewed as a multi-relational, directed graph with timestamped edges between nodes (entities). Each event (fact) in the $\\mathcal{G} = \\{G_0,G_1,\\dots ,G_T\\}$ can be represented as a quadruple $(s,r,o,t)$ or $(s_t,r_t,o_t)$ , corresponding to subject entity $s\\in \\mathcal{E}$ , relation type $r\\in \\mathcal{R}$ , object entity $o\\in \\mathcal{E}$ and timestamp $t\\in \\mathcal{T}$ , where $\\mathcal{E},\\mathcal{R}$ and $\\mathcal{T}$ represent the sets of entities, relationships and timestamps, respectively. The purpose of the temporal knowledge graph completion task is to infer the missing object entity $o$ given the query $(s,r,?,t)$ , or missing subject entity $s$ of the query $(?,r,o,t)$ , $t\\in \\{0,\\ldots ,T\\}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 621, + 884, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 845, + 613, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two stages. The first step is to construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query. EET can be viewed", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "419", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "as a structured event sequence incorporating structural and temporal contextual information related to the predicted fact. Second, we present our SToKE model, which learns joint structural and temporal contextualized knowledge representations based on the constructed EET.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Event Evolution Tree Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 191, + 435, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The event evolution tree is used to transform structural and temporal contexts related to the query into a structured knowledge sequence. Specifically, for the query $(s,r,\\ref{eq:2},t)$ , we construct an EET $C = \\{c_{t - m},\\dots ,c_{t - 1},c_t,c_{t + 1},\\dots ,c_{t + m}\\}$ , where $c_{i} = \\{s\\{(r_{i1},o_{i1}),\\dots ,(r_{in},o_{in})\\} \\}$ denotes the fact set at timestamp $i$ that the subject entity $s$ participates in. We constrain the time interval between the timestamp of the query and each fact to be no more than $m$ . Note that in the TKGC setting, we assume there is missing data at some time point $t$ but the other snapshot information is available during training (Wu et al., 2020). Hence, we integrate more temporal information from both past and future timestamps. Each fact set $c_{i}$ contains at most $n$ facts occurring at timestamp $i$ which are composed of the subject entity $s$ of the query, the 1-hop neighbor entity $o_i$ and the relation $r_i$ linking two entities. Each fact can be viewed as a \"Branch\" of the $i$ th layer, and subject entities $s$ of distinct layers constitute the \"Trunk\". We design two strategies to select $n$ facts in each set $c_{i}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 212, + 489, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1) Active Facts First(AFF) (Wu et al., 2020): Prefer facts that appear more often in time window $m$ among neighbor facts;", + "2) Repetitive Facts First(RFF) (Zhu et al., 2021): Prefer facts that have the same relation as query among neighbor facts, and the AFF strategy is followed if the number of facts does not reach $n$ ." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2(a), the EET is constructed from the query-specific subgraph in Figure 1(a) $(m = 1, n = 2)$ . The query's subject entity China is shared by each event in this EET structure, connecting distinct events in both structural and temporal dimensions. Section 4.2.2 shows the reason for China's ability to bridge different dimensional facts from a fine-grained perspective. Similarly, for the query $(?, r, o, t)$ , the fact set $c_i$ is defined by $\\{o\\{(\\dot{r}_{i1}, s_{i1}), \\dots, (\\dot{r}_{in}, s_{in})\\}\\}$ , where $\\dot{r}$ denotes the inverse relation of $r$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 489, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 The Proposed SToKE Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 386, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, the overall framework of SToKE has three main components. The first part is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "an embedding layer to learn initial knowledge representations with three distinct embeddings. The second part is a mask transformer encoder to model the interactions among facts in different dimensional contexts and learn contextualized knowledge representations. The third part is a prediction layer to infer the missing entity based on the hidden representation of the [MASK] token.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.1 Learning Initial Knowledge Embeddings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 222, + 882, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The critical challenge is how to preserve the temporal information of the EET in the knowledge representations. We add a novel temporal embedding to focus on the relative position and absolute displacement of facts in the temporal dimension.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 241, + 882, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Token Embedding Similar to BERT, we use two special tokens, i.e., [CLS] and [SEP], as the beginning and end of the text, respectively. We employ the [MASK] token to mask the missing entity of the given query and align the different lengths of text with [PAD] token. As shown in Figure 2(a), we treat each fact component in the EET as individual tokens and unroll the tree structure in absolute position order to obtain a new input text, $S = \\{e_0, e_1, \\ldots, e_{l-1}\\}$ , where $e$ represents entity, relation or special tokens, and $l$ is the max sequence length. However, some tokens consisting of multiple words, such as Intend_to_cooperate, will lose original semantics as part of the event while being tokenized with the BERT vocabulary. Hence, we create two new lookup tables for entities and relations, denoted by $T_{ent}$ and $T_{rel}$ . We add four special tokens and consider the inverse relation of $r$ for query $(?, r, o, t)$ , so the entity lookup table $T_{ent} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(|\\mathcal{E}|+4) \\times d}$ , and the relation lookup table $T_{rel} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{2|\\mathcal{R}| \\times d}$ , where $d$ is the hidden size, $|\\mathcal{E}|$ and $|\\mathcal{R}|$ are the total number of elements in the entity set and relation set, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 331, + 884, + 701 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Temporal Embedding To exploit the order information of tokens in the sequence, BERT adds an absolute position embedding. However, only considering the absolute position index will disrupt the temporal order of the facts occurring in the EET. Taking the input text in Figure 2(b) as an example, although Intend_to_cooperate and Japan are inserted after Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and (China, Sign_formal_agreements, [MASK]) are both events occurring at the same time and should have consistent temporal location information. To solve above issue, we present a temporal position embedding", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "420", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3fc079b0a81ae83f8574514a660a13f6df122ab65db9d37620cb2472428a3029.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The framework of our proposed SToKE model. Suppose (a) is our constructed EET from the subgraph in Figure 1. Our SToKE consists of three components: Part (b) is to convert the EET into an embedding representation with the temporal position and displacement information. Part (c) is to learn contextualized knowledge representations with the structural matrix. And part (d) is to predict the missing entity with the [MASK] token." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 86, + 867, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to replace the origin absolute position embedding of BERT. Specifically, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan have the same temporal position indexes 5 and 6 as Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], rather than absolute position indexes 7 and 8. From the view of temporal order, the above two events are equivalent to occurring at the same timestamp.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 455, + 487, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, the temporal position embedding considers the relative temporal position of tokens in the text, ignoring the absolute temporal gap between timestamps of the query and each event. Concretely, we add a temporal displacement embedding as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 568, + 489, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {E} _ {j} = \\boldsymbol {W} _ {\\Delta t} (\\boldsymbol {e} _ {j} + \\boldsymbol {\\tau} _ {| \\Delta t _ {j} |}), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 678, + 487, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{r} \\pmb {W} _ {\\Delta t} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\pmb {W} _ {p a s t} & \\Delta t _ {j} < 0 \\\\ \\pmb {W} _ {n o w} & \\Delta t _ {j} = 0 \\\\ \\pmb {W} _ {f u t u r e} & \\Delta t _ {j} > 0 \\end{array} \\right., \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 713, + 436, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\Delta t_{j} = t_{j} - t_{query}$ , $e_j\\in \\mathbb{R}^d$ is the temporal position embedding, and $j$ is the temporal position index. We learn the discrete embedding of temporal displacement $\\tau_{|\\Delta t_j|}\\in \\mathbb{R}^d$ , and consider the sign of the displacement by applying different weights $\\pmb{W}_{\\Delta t}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d}$ . Then, we follow the segment embeddings of BERT, and treat each input text as one sentence with the same segment tag. At last, we sum the above three embeddings to get the final", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "embeddings $X \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}$ , and feed it to the mask transformer encoder.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 454, + 882, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.2 Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 506, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to learn contextualized embeddings of the missing entity, we propose the mask transformer encoder, which differs from the BERT block by introducing the structural matrix $M$ to restrict the self-attention area. Specifically, the matrix $M$ controls the dependencies among structural and temporal contextual facts, making our model feasible and efficient. As shown in the left part of Figure 2(c), the row and column of the matrix are absolute position indexes, where blue dots mean visible and white dots mean invisible. Specifically, three tokens China, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan interact with each other because they are components of the same fact. Therefore the points in the matrix where their corresponding indexes (1, 2 and 3) cross are blue. In contrast, Japan should not be affected by Express_accord since they are the object and relation of two facts, respectively. The points where their corresponding indexes (3 and 10) intersect are white. Hence, the structural matrix $M \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times l}$ is defined as shown below:", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 531, + 885, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {M} [ a, b ] = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} 0, & \\text {i f} e _ {a} \\ominus e _ {b} \\\\ - \\infty , & \\text {o t h e r s .} \\end{array} \\right., \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 887, + 882, + 922 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "421", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "here, $e_a \\ominus e_b$ indicates that $e_a$ and $e_b$ are in the same \"Branch\" or \"Trunk\" mentioned in Section 4.1, which means $e_a$ and $e_b$ are visible to each other, $a$ and $b$ are the absolute position indexes. In particular, the [CLS] and [SEP] tokens are also treated as a part of \"Trunk\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moreover, the mask transformer encoder is stacked by $L$ mask self-attention layers, which maps the input embeddings $\\mathbf{X}$ to contextual representations $\\pmb{H}^{(L)}$ , where $\\pmb{X}$ , $\\pmb{H}^{(L)} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}$ . At each layer, we also use three independent linear transformation matrices, $\\pmb{W}_q^i, \\pmb{W}_k^i, \\pmb{W}_v^i \\in \\mathbb{R}^{d \\times d'}$ , to transform the input embeddings $\\pmb{X}$ into queries, keys, and values of the $i$ -th scaled dot-product attention head, where $d' = \\frac{d}{K}$ , and $i = 1, 2, \\ldots, K$ . The specific function is shown below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 183, + 489, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {H} ^ {i} = f \\left(\\frac {\\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {q} ^ {i}\\right) \\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {k} ^ {i}\\right) ^ {T}}{\\sqrt {d ^ {\\prime}}} + \\boldsymbol {M}\\right) \\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {v} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 357, + 487, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $H^{i} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d'}$ is the output representation of corresponding attention head, $f$ is the softmax function, and we cascade them to get the output $H \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}$ . When $M[a, b] = -\\infty$ , the softmax function makes the attention weight to zero, preventing token $e_{a}$ from computing the attention score of token $e_{b}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 413, + 487, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As the example illustrated in Figure 2(c), $h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)}$ is affected by $h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}$ , and obtain the information of $h_{\\mathrm{Japan}}^{(j)}$ indirectly through $h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}$ . Meanwhile, $h_{\\mathrm{Botswana}}^{(j - 1)}$ can pass information to $h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)}$ through $h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j)}$ and $h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}$ . Similarly, Intend_to_cooperate and Express Accord tokens also have an effect on [MASK]. Thus, the [MASK] token incorporates the information of structural neighboring fact (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and temporal adjacency fact (China, Express Accord, Botswana). The China token acts as a \"bridge\" between facts of different dimensions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 529, + 489, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.3 Predicting the Missing Entity", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 750, + 403, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As described in Section 4.1, we create two training instances for each fact, one by replacing the missing object entity of query $(s,r,\\?,t)$ with a special token [MASK], and the other by replacing the subject entity of query $(?,r,o,t)$ with the [MASK] token. Then we treat the TKGC task as a mask prediction problem, and input the final contextual embedding $h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(L)}$ into the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) decoder to predict the occurrence probabili", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 772, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9c61f8d5dae82d28f67e5df5a60bd9187fcf5c22368e1f7ea277986eba76cd3c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Datasets|E||R|NtrainNvalidNtest|T|
ICEWS147,12823072,8268,9418,963365
ICEWS05-1510,488251368,96246,27546,0924,017
GDELT500202,735,685341,961341,961366
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 80, + 882, + 136 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Dataset Statistics of three datasets. ( $N_{train}$ , $N_{valid}$ and $N_{test}$ are the number of facts in training, validation and test sets.)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 145, + 882, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ties of all entities:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 215, + 643, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np (\\mathbf {e}) = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(\\left(h _ {\\text {[ M A S K ]}} ^ {(L)} \\boldsymbol {w} _ {1} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {1}\\right) \\boldsymbol {w} _ {2} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {2}\\right), \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 241, + 882, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\pmb{w}_1\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d}$ , $\\pmb{b}_1\\in \\mathbb{R}^d$ are the parameters of the first linear layer, and $\\pmb{w}_2\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times (|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)}$ , $\\pmb{b}_2\\in \\mathbb{R}^{(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)}$ are the parameters of second.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 278, + 882, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Training Objective", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 340, + 702, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We regard the mask prediction problem as a multiclass classification task and use the cross-entropy function to calculate the loss during the training process:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 361, + 882, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = - \\sum_ {(s, r, o, t)} \\log p (o _ {t}) + \\log p (s _ {t}), \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 556, + 438, + 882, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$(s,r,o,t)\\in \\mathcal{G}$ represents the known facts in the training set, $p(*)$ represents the probability scores of corresponding entities obtained from Eq.(4).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 487, + 880, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 548, + 655, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 575, + 714, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our model on three typical datasets commonly used in previous studies, namely ICEWS14, ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018) and GDELT (Trivedi et al., 2017). Dataset statistics are described in Table 1. For ICEWS (Boschee et al., 2015), a well-established event-based datasets, we use two subsets corresponding to facts from 2014/1/1 to 2014/12/31 and facts from 2005/1/1 to 2015/12/31, i.e., ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15. For GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013), we use the subset provided by Trivedi et al. (2017) corresponding to facts from 2015/4/1 to 2016/3/31. Finally, we split all datasets into train, validation and test set with the same partitioning by Goel et al. (2020). And we report the link prediction performance on two evaluation metrics under the time-wise filtered setting (Goel et al., 2020): MRR and Hits@k (1, 3, 10). More details about metrics and implementation are summarized in Appendix A and B, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 596, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "422", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3f32cf9c8fd0b09da575ec0a413d851fbc378f7f5bd63c5a2f5c4044c80b5a6c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodICEWS14ICEWS05-15GDELT
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
TransE (2013).280.094-.637.294.090-.663----
DisMult (2015).441.325.498.668.457.338.515.691.210.133.224.365
ComplEx (2016).442.440.430.664.464.347.524.696.213.133.225.366
Simple (2018).458.341.516.687.478.359.539.708.206.124.220.366
TTransE (2016).255.074-.601.271.084-.616.115.000.160.318
TeRo (2020).562.468.621.732.586.469.668.795.245.154.264.420
ChronoR (2021).625.547.669.773.675.596.723.820----
RotateQVS (2022).591.507.642.754.633.529.709.813.270.175.293.458
BoxTE (2022).613.528.664.763.667.582.719.820.352.269.377.511
TA-DisMult (2018).477.363-.686.474.346-.728.206.124.219.365
DE-SimplE (2020).526.418.592.725.513.392.578.748.230.141.248.403
TNTComplEx (2020).620.520.660.760.670.590.710.810.223.142.237.379
TeLM (2021).625.545.673.774.678.599.728.823----
Time-LowFER (2022).623.549.671.757.638.555.690.791----
TeMP (2020).601.478.681.828.691.566.782.917.275.191.297.437
T-GAP (2021).610.509.677.790.670.568.743.845----
SPA (concurrent work).658.544.737.857.713.580.820.933.360.282.384.510
SToKE.659.574.693.803.712.605.790.885.371.290.399.525
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 80, + 878, + 334 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Performance comparison on three benchmark datasets. The best and second best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively. Results are taken from the responding literature, and \"-\" means not reported.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 882, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 399, + 235, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare our model with representative static KG embeddings: TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) and ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), existing advanced TKGE approaches, including distance-based extensions: TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), TeRo (Xu et al., 2020b), ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021), RotateQVS (Chen et al., 2022) and BoxTE (Messner et al., 2022), extensions of semantic matching methods: TA-DisMult (García-Durán et al., 2018), DE-SimpleE (Goel et al., 2020), TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and Time-LowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022), and GNN-based methods: TeMP (Wu et al., 2020), T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) and concurrent work SPA (Wang et al., 2022c). Among the above baselines, GNN-based methods focus on query-relevant contextual information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 721, + 265, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 reports the link prediction results of all methods on three benchmark datasets. We can observe that SToKE consistently outperforms the baselines on all datasets. Especially on the GDELT dataset, our model achieves improvements of $5.4\\%$ in MRR and $7.8\\%$ in Hits@1 over the best baseline. The possible reason is that the GDELT dataset is substantially denser (the training set contains about 2.7 million facts for 500 entities, 20 relations), and thus involves richer structural and temporal contextual information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In general, most temporal models perform much better than the static KGE methods since they consider temporal information in distinct ways. Specifically, the temporal extensions of static methods outperform the original counterpart for TKGC task, e.g., TeRo and TransE, DE-SimplE and SimplE, suggesting that it is feasible to incorporate temporal information into the embeddings or scoring functions. Among temporal extensions of semantic matching methods, TeLM achieves the best performance on ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15 due to its more expressive multi-vector embedding for modeling entities, relations and timestamps of TKGE. For distance-based TKGE approaches, ChronoR and BoxTE outperform other methods because they incorporate temporal information into translation model variants, i.e., rotational or spatiotranslational score functions. Overall, both types of TKGE methods achieve good results on this task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 399, + 884, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GNN-based methods perform strongly on three datasets, especially achieving the best results other than our model on Hits@3 and Hits@10 metrics, most notably because they additionally consider query-relevant contextual information to infer the missing facts. However, query-relevant facts may introduce knowledge noise effects, causing GNN approaches to be slightly worse than some TKGE models on the Hits@1 metric. There is no doubt that our model achieves better results because we consider both structural and temporal facts on inference. We construct the input text by filtering out some relevant facts through heuristic strategies,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "423", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9bb9536859dbdf9c16f87a99f0ea42e2dded40d978f6960c1c542c0d0a870591.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Query: (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29) Answer: B
Layer2014-1-272014-1-29
12ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
-----.691.138.171--
11ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.256----.097.065.083.021.034
10ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.068.066.282.057.199.030----
", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 80, + 873, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fe5b30474a4261dc3852ddf0eb1299ee2bd7fffa093728a180826d8076af069c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: A partial input text related to the query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), where $A$ , $B$ and $C$ represent South_Korea, North_Korea and Japan, respectively. We only list the attention scores with bolded token as the query value in each layer." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsICEWS14
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SToKE.659.574.693.803
- SC.647.556.688.792
- TC.543.428.593.755
+AFF.641.550.678.796
- TE.641.557.675.791
- SM.634.547.669.778
+ BERT-large.662.576.700.809
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 271, + 470, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Performance of different variants on ICEWS14.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 407, + 485, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which reduces the noise effect to some extent and allows our model to achieve the best results on the Hits@1 metric. Meanwhile, heuristic strategies may also ignore some inactive entities as query answers (Wu et al., 2020), which makes our model slightly less effective than TeMP on Hits@10. Furthermore, the performance of our model still shows strong competitiveness compared to the concurrent work. SPA designs specific GNN architectures for different datasets, while we use a unified BERT architecture to explore TKG's topological and temporal properties simultaneously.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 450, + 489, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 658, + 280, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Table 4, we conduct ablation experiments on ICEWS14, and discuss the effects of different variants as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 681, + 489, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "EET Variants. The third block shows the results corresponding to the different construction methods of EET in the first step. - SC (Structural Contexts) indicates that we construct the EET only considering temporal adjacency facts associated with the query, ignoring the interactions between facts within the same timestamp, i.e., making the hyperparameter $n$ to 1. Similarly, - TC (Temporal Contexts) means we only incorporate concurrent facts with the query into the EET, making $m$ to 0. The results demonstrate that both structural and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "temporal contexts in the query-specific subgraph contribute to the prediction, which exactly validates our motivation. $+AFF$ indicates that we replace the RFF strategy with the AFF strategy mentioned in Section 4.1, which implies that the RFF heuristic has the advantage of exploring neighboring entities related to the query.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 884, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Model Variants. We use an absolute position embedding and a fully connected matrix instead of the temporal embedding (TE) and the structural matrix (SM), and denote them by - TE and - SM, respectively. It can be seen that the performance of two model variants decreases a lot, proving the validity of two model components. Besides, we use a larger pre-trained BERT-large model to replace the original BERT-base. The more parameters fully explore the query-related contexts, resulting in a performance improvement, which indicates that our model can fine-tune other pre-trained BERT models for the link prediction task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 399, + 884, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.5 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 643, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to show how SToKE learns contextual information related to the query, we provide an example in Table 3 from the test set of ICEWS14. When facing query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), the model tries to find the answer from its relevant contextual facts. Due to the limitations of the structural matrix, the [MASK] token puts more attention on the $A$ token at the 12th layer. Through attention scores at the 11th layer, it can be observed that $A$ does not assign a higher score to $C$ at the same timestamp but focuses on its adjacent timestamped $A$ token. Moreover, the $A$ token at 2014-1-27 aggregates the hidden information of $B$ and passes it to the [MASK] token through the $A$ at 2014-1-29, which illustrates the reason why $A$ as a \"Trunk\" can \"bridge\" different contexts mentioned in Section 4.1. We argue that the model assigns", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "424", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scores in this way because the concurrent fact $(A, \\text{Host\\_a\\_vist}, C)$ holds an opposite meaning to the query, while the relation Engage_in_negotiation of temporal adjacent fact is typically accompanied by Criticize_or_denounce. The example also verifies that our model can explore both structural and temporal contexts related to the query.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 212, + 247, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a novel model for the temporal knowledge graph completion task named SToKE, which learns contextualized knowledge representations in terms of joint structural and temporal dimensions. Unlike other GNN-based methods, our model uses a unified BERT architecture to simultaneously explore contextual information of the TKG substructure, i.e., query-relevant structural and temporal neighboring facts. To enable BERT to handle the TKG, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query, and introduce temporal embedding and structural matrix to ensure the temporal order and structural dependencies among facts in EET. Through masking the missing entity of query to fine-tune the pre-trained BERT, our model outperforms other methods on three widely used datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 240, + 489, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 529, + 218, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our model simultaneously encodes structural and temporal contexts of the TKG substructure, and uses heuristic strategies to select a portion of query-relevant facts as input texts for PLMs. We can achieve stunning results with these selected facts. However, this work only considers the query-relevant one-hop neighbor facts to achieve a good performance improvement, but ignores the benefits of multi-hop neighbor facts. We leave it for future work to verify the effectiveness of multi-hop paths.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 557, + 489, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 734, + 285, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 62025208 and 61932001.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 760, + 489, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 840, + 213, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS, pages 2787-2795.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 865, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icews coded event data. Harvard Data-verse, 12.", + "Kai Chen, Ye Wang, Yitong Li, and Aiping Li. 2022. Rotateqs: Representing temporal information as rotations in quaternion vector space for temporal knowledge graph completion. In ACL, pages 5843-5857.", + "Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulçehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In EMNLP, pages 1724-1734.", + "Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In EMNLP, pages 2001-2011.", + "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In AAAI, pages 1811-1818.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186.", + "Ioannis Dikeoulias, Saadullah Amin, and Günter Neumann. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with low-rank and model-agnostic representations. In RepL4NLP@ACL, pages 111-120.", + "Yifu Gao, Linhui Feng, Zhigang Kan, Yi Han, Linbo Qiao, and Dongsheng Li. 2022. Modeling precursors for temporal knowledge graph reasoning via autoencoder structure. In IJCAI, pages 2044-2051.", + "Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 4816-4821.", + "Rishab Goel, Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Marcus A. Brubaker, and Pascal Poupart. 2020. Diachronic embedding for temporal knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 3988-3995.", + "Zhen Han, Ruotong Liao, Beiyan Liu, Yao Zhang, Zifeng Ding, Heinz Köpl, Hinrich Schütze, and Volker Tresp. 2022. Enhanced temporal knowledge embeddings with contextualized language representations. CoRR, abs/2203.09590.", + "Bin He, Di Zhou, Jinghui Xiao, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, Nicholas Jing Yuan, and Tong Xu. 2020. BERT-MK: Integrating graph contextualized knowledge into pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 2281-2290.", + "Shaoxiong Ji, Shirui Pan, Erik Cambria, Pekka Marttinen, and Philip S. Yu. 2022. A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "425", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33(2):494-514.", + "Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In COLING, pages 1715-1724.", + "Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In EMNLP, pages 6669-6683.", + "Jaehun Jung, Jinhong Jung, and U Kang. 2021. Learning to walk across time for interpretable temporal knowledge graph completion. In KDD, pages 786-795.", + "Seyed Mehran Kazemi and David Poole. 2018. Simple embedding for link prediction in knowledge graphs. In NeurIPS, pages 4289-4300.", + "Timothee Lacroix, Guillaume Obozinski, and Nicolas Usunier. 2020. Tensor decompositions for temporal knowledge base completion. In *ICLR*.", + "Kalev Leetaru and Philip A Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone. In ISA Annual Convention.", + "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In SIGIR.", + "Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 2181-2187.", + "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Qi Ju, Haotang Deng, and Ping Wang. 2020. K-BERT: enabling language representation with knowledge graph. In AAAI, pages 2901-2908.", + "Johannes Messner, Ralph Abboud, and Ismail Ilkan Ceylan. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph completion using box embeddings. In AAAI, pages 7779-7787.", + "Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In ACL, pages 4710-4723.", + "Dai Quoc Nguyen, Tu Dinh Nguyen, Dat Quoc Nguyen, and Dinh Q. Phung. 2018. A novel embedding model for knowledge base completion based on convolutional neural network. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 327-333.", + "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert L. Logan IV, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 43-54." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Anthony Colas, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2021. Chronor: Rotation based temporal knowledge graph embedding. In AAAI, pages 6471-6479.", + "Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In ESWC.", + "Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Xipeng Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Yaru Hu, Xuanjing Huang, and Zheng Zhang. 2020. Colake: Contextualized language and knowledge embedding. In COLING, pages 3660-3670.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In ICLR.", + "Rakshit Trivedi, Hanjun Dai, Yichen Wang, and Le Song. 2017. Know-evolve: Deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs. In ICML, pages 3462-3471.", + "Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In ICML, pages 2071-2080.", + "Bo Wang, Tao Shen, Guodong Long, Tianyi Zhou, Ying Wang, and Yi Chang. 2021a. Structure-augmented text representation learning for efficient knowledge graph completion. In WWW, pages 1737-1748.", + "Liang Wang, Wei Zhao, Zhuoyu Wei, and Jingming Liu. 2022a. Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In ACL, pages 4281-4294.", + "Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021b. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194.", + "Xintao Wang, Qianyu He, Jiaqing Liang, and Yanghua Xiao. 2022b. Language models as knowledge embeddings. In *IJCAI*, pages 2291-2297.", + "Zhen Wang, Haotong Du, Quanming Yao, and Xuelong Li. 2022c. Search to pass messages for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 6189-6201.", + "Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI, pages 1112-1119.", + "Jiapeng Wu, Meng Cao, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Temp: Temporal message passing for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 5730-5746." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "426", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Chengjin Xu, Yung-Yu Chen, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Jens Lehmann. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph completion using a linear temporal regularizer and multivector embeddings. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 2569-2578.", + "Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Jens Lehmann, and Hamed Shariat Yazdi. 2020a. Temporal knowledge graph embedding model based on additive time series decomposition. In ISWC, pages 654-671.", + "Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Hamed Shariat Yazdi, and Jens Lehmann. 2020b. Tero: A time-aware knowledge graph embedding via temporal rotation. In COLING, pages 1583-1593.", + "Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In ICLR.", + "Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. KG-BERT: BERT for knowledge graph completion. CoRR, abs/1909.03193.", + "Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Zhiyi Deng, and Jie Shao. 2021. Spatial-temporal attention network for temporal knowledge graph completion. In DASFAA, pages 207-223.", + "Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Yongpan Sheng, and Jie Shao. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph representation learning with local and global evolutions. Knowledge-Based Systems, 251:109234.", + "Jiawei Zhang, Haopeng Zhang, Congying Xia, and Li Sun. 2020a. Graph-bert: Only attention is needed for learning graph representations. CoRR, abs/2001.05140.", + "Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, Hengshu Zhu, Zhi-Ping Shi, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020b. Relational graph neural network with hierarchical attention for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 9612-9619.", + "Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: enhanced language representation with informative entities. In ACL, pages 1441-1451.", + "Zhiyuan Zhang, Xiaoqian Liu, Yi Zhang, Qi Su, Xu Sun, and Bin He. 2020c. Pretrain-kge: Learning knowledge representation from pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 259-266.", + "Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhan. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In AAAI." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 83, + 615, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) and the proportion of correct quadruples ranked in top 1, 3 and 10 (Hits@1, Hits@3, and Hits@10) to evaluate the model performance. There are two filtered setting, static filtered (Bordes et al., 2013) and time-wise filtered (Goel et al., 2020). The static filtered setting is not suitable for TKGs. For example, given a test query $(s,r,\\?,t)$ with the answer $o$ , assume that there are two other quadruples $(s,r,o',t')$ and $(s,r,o'',t)$ , where $t' < t$ . The static filtered setting ignores time information and removes both $o'$ and $o''$ from the candidates. However, the fact $(s,r,o')$ is temporally valid on $t'$ , instead of timesamp $t$ . In this way, the filtered setting wrongly removes quite a few quadruples and thus leads to higher ranking scores. A more appropriate timewise filtered setting is only to remove $o''$ from the candidates. Specifically, for each test quadruple $(s,r,o,t)$ , we create two queries: $(s,r,\\?,t)$ and $(?,r,o,t)$ . For the first query, the model ranks all entities in $o \\cup C$ with their scores from Eq.(4), where $C = \\{o':o' \\in \\mathcal{E}, (s,r,o',t) \\notin \\mathcal{G}\\}$ . We follow a similar approach for the second query.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 882, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Detailed Experimental Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 491, + 815, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We choose pre-trained BERT-base model (Devlin et al., 2019) with $L = 12$ layers, $K = 12$ self-attention heads and $d = 768$ hidden dimension of embeddings as the initialization. We select the optimal hyperparameters by grid searching according to MRR on the validation set, and set the following hyperparameters in fine-tuning with Adam: batch size: 128, learning rate: 2e-5 and dropout rate: 0.1. We use the RFF strategy to construct the event evelution tree. In EET, the length of time window $m$ and the number of concurrent facts $n$ are set to 10 and 2 for ICEWS14, 14 and 2 for ICEWS05-15, 5 and 2 for GDELT dataset. The length of input text $l$ is set to 107, 147 and 57 for ICEWS and GDELT respectively, where $l = (m * 2 + 1) * (n * 2 + 1) + 2$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 517, + 882, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, our SToKE consists of a embedding layer, a mask transformer encoder and a MLP. The parameters of embedding layer consists of token embedding $(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4,d)$ , segment embedding $(2,d)$ , temporal position and displacement embedding $(l + |\\mathcal{T}|,d)$ and three matrices $W_{\\Delta t}3d^2$ . The mask transformer encoder contains 12 mask self attention layers, where the parameters of each layer consist of three matrices $W_{q},W_{k},W_{v}$ , a concatenated linear layer, where the parameter quantity of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "427", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e242ea7ec182d68443bbd8f65dbd3a207cd7d2db99c01bff7116ffb4087feea2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
GPU ResourceNVIDIA RTX A6000
HyperparameterSearch BoundBest Setup
length of time window mchoice{5, 10, 12, 14}10(ICEWS14), 14(ICEWS05-15), 5(GDELT)
number of concurrent facts nchoice{1, 2, 4}2
length of input text lchoice{57, 107, 147}107(ICEWS14), 147(ICEWS05-15), 57(GDELT)
number of epochschoice{30, 50}30 (ICEWS05-15, GDELT), 50 (ICEWS14)
batch sizechoice{32, 64, 128}128
learning ratechoice{2e-5, 5e-4}2e-5
droupout ratechoice{0.1, 0.2}0.1
number of model parameters-98.6M(ICEWS14), 106.6M(ICEWS05-15), 88.4M(GDELT)
gpu hours-12h(ICEWS14), 40h(ICEWS05-15), 60h(GDELT)
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Additional implementation details of SToKE.", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 266, + 682, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4f93d0105be2b872f3c4df3ed8078d6c5ef04e5425467fade80a9f74c98bdc4b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Parameter sensitivity on our SToKE." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 305, + 485, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "each part is $d^2$ , and the FFN is $8d^{2}$ . The number of MLP parameters is $d^{2} + d(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)$ . Ignoring Layernorm and Bias parameters, the amount of parameters is $148d^{2} + d(2|\\mathcal{E}| + |\\mathcal{T}| + l + 10)$ . Finally, we implement our model in PyTorch with NVIDIA RTX A6000. As shown in Table 5, we report the hyperparameter search bounds and best configurations along with thegpu resource.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 489, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Sensitivity Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 615, + 324, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report the performance changes on the ICEWS14 dataset by varying the hyper-parameters, including the length of time window $m$ and the number of concurrent facts $n$ . Figure 3(a) shows the performance with various time window lengths. It can be observed that our model performs better with the longer time window $m$ used. However, MRR is relatively stable at around 10, and considering the computation cost, we set $m$ to 10 on this dataset. As shown in Figure 3(b), the model performance rises and falls as the number of neighboring facts within the same timestamp increases. The probable reason is that too many concurrent facts bring knowledge noise, which affects the model's judgment of the missing fact.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 492, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "428", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 145, + 238, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are no potential risks in our work. We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 880, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 228, + 695, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract and 1 Introduction", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 246, + 357, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 272, + 668, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 288, + 231, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 315, + 487, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 337, + 640, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 362, + 529, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 381, + 657, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 406, + 779, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 423, + 880, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 464, + 880, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 530, + 880, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 573, + 880, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use public datasets and do not use any related content, so it is not necessary to take this step in our work.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 621, + 880, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 662, + 880, + 696 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 697, + 332, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 722, + 880, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 804, + 332, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 877, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "429", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 494, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Main Results, 4.4 Ablation Study and 4.5 Case Study", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 105, + 552, + 121 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix B", + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4.3 Main Results", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix B" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 130, + 878, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 399, + 877, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 447, + 878, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "430", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_model.json b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5a2dc4305838b08c3585c5abd10a73f103d7965 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2560 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.08, + 0.852, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.125, + 0.852, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yifu Gao\\(^{1}\\), Yongquan He\\(^{2}\\), Zhigang Kan\\(^{1}\\), Yi Han\\(^{3}\\), Linbo Qiao\\(^{1}\\), Dongsheng Li\\(^{1*}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.234, + 0.144, + 0.769, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\) National Key Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Computing, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.395, + 0.176, + 0.607, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Meituan, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.193, + 0.862, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 College of Meteorology and Oceanography, National University of Defense Technology {gaoyifu, kanzhigang13, hanyi12, qiao.linbo, dsli}@nudt.edu.cn heyongquan@meituan.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.276, + 0.461, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Temporal knowledge graph completion that predicts missing links for incomplete temporal knowledge graphs (TKG) is gaining increasing attention. Most existing works have achieved good results by incorporating time information into static knowledge graph embedding methods. However, they ignore the contextual nature of the TKG structure, i.e., query-specific subgraph contains both structural and temporal neighboring facts. This paper presents the SToKE, a novel method that employs the pre-trained language model (PLM) to learn joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings. Specifically, we first construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query to enable PLMs to handle the TKG, which can be seen as a structured event sequence recording query-relevant structural and temporal contexts. We then propose a novel temporal embedding and structural matrix to learn the time information and structural dependencies of facts in EET. Finally, we formulate TKG completion as a mask prediction problem by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained language models. Experimental results on three widely used datasets show the superiority of our model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.667, + 0.26, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.692, + 0.49, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge graphs have facilitated many real-world applications, including question answering, dialogue systems and speech recognition (Ji et al., 2022). The rapidly growing facts on the knowledge graph often show dynamic relations or interactions of entities along the timeline, which creates the need for introducing the concept of temporal knowledge graph (TKG). Such TKGs often suffer from incompleteness due to their own dynamic features. Therefore, the temporal knowledge graph completion (TKGC) task that predicts missing links across these TKGs is gaining increasing attention from researchers (Boschee et al., 2015)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.251, + 0.878, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.432, + 0.885, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Part (a) shows an example of a query-specific subgraph, which consists of the facts where the query's subject China participates at the same or different timestamps. Part (b) shows the event evolutionary tree converted from the subgraph in Part (a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.532, + 0.885, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent works on the TKGC task have primarily focused on static knowledge graph embedding (KGE) methods. They extend KGE models by encoding time information into conventional score functions in different ways (Jiang et al., 2016; García-Durán et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020b; Lacroix et al., 2020; Messner et al., 2022), called temporal knowledge graph embedding (TKGE). Although TKGE methods outperform static KGE on this task, they mostly fail to consider the rich contextual information related to the query in the TKG structure." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As a subgraph of TKG shown in Figure 1(a), when facing the query (China, Sign formal agreements,?, 2014-12-30), its relevant contexts include both concurrent facts within the same timestamp (solid red) and temporal adjacency facts at different timestamps (dashed blue). The structural contexts (China, Intend to cooperate, Japan, 2014-12-30) and (China, Engage in diplomatic cooperation, Iran, 2014-12-30) suggests that China may sign formal agreements with either Japan or Iran. Moreover, the temporal contexts illustrate that China has been expressing intent to cooperate with Japan for some time, making Japan a more reasonable" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.292, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding Author" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.485, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "417" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.237, + 0.946, + 0.761, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 417-430 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.491, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "answer to the query. Hence, learning knowledge embeddings that could effectively capture query-relevant structural and temporal contextual information facilitates the inference of missing facts. However, existing methods either only encode temporal adjacent facts residing in the query's local neighborhood (Jung et al., 2021), or only focus on concurrent events within the same timestamp and integrate entity representations of different timestamps with additional recurrence or attention mechanisms (Wu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). They fail to encode two query-relevant contexts simultaneously only using graph neural network variants, which requires us to solve the above problem by introducing a new architecture. Recent advances in pre-trained language models (PLMs) are able to learn word representations and graph representations through distinct structured contexts (Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a). Intuitively, PLMs can capture contextual meanings of entity and relation representations along joint structural and temporal dimensions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inspired by this, we propose the SToKE, a novel BERT-based model to learn knowledge embeddings with joint structural and temporal contexts. Another challenging problem is to draw connections of query-specific substructure to natural language sentences. To handle this issue, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query as shown in Figure 1(b). The EET represents the temporal evolution in the order from \"Root\" to \"Crown\", where each layer corresponds to different timestamps. Facts occurring at the same timestamp constitute the \"Branches\" of this layer, and query's subject entity China acts as a \"Trunk\" connecting different structural and temporal adjacent facts. EET is essentially a structured event sequence that helps PLMs better understand contextual information in the query-specific subgraph. Besides, we add a novel temporal embedding in the initial embeddings to ensure the sequential order of facts appearing in the EET. Considering the knowledge noise problem caused by introducing query-relevant contexts with different dimensions, we present a structural matrix to restrict the structure dependencies between facts. Overall, this paper makes the following contributions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.856, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) We propose SToKE, a novel model for the TKGC task that learns knowledge embeddings in terms of joint structural and temporal contexts via the pre-trained language model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) To enable BERT-like PLMs to handle the query-specific subgraph, we propose an event evolution tree that transforms structural and temporal contexts into a structured event sequence. The temporal order and structural dependencies of facts in the EET are limited by adopting the temporal embedding and structural matrix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.199, + 0.884, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3) We formulate the TKGC task as a mask prediction task by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained BERT models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.247, + 0.883, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4) Our SToKE outperforms the state-of-the-art methods over three widely used datasets, which demonstrates our model's superiority." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.308, + 0.665, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.334, + 0.796, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Knowledge Graph Embedding" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.356, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KGE aims to map the entities and relations into continuous vector space and score the plausibility of a triple, which can be roughly divided into distance-based models, semantic matching models and neural network models. Distance-based models measure the plausibility of a triple as the distance between the relation-translated subject and object entity embeddings, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) and its various extensions (Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015). Especially, RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) treats each relation as a rotation from the subject to the object. Semantic matching models measure the plausibility of a fact by mining the underlying semantics between entity and relation embeddings, e.g., DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016) and SimpleE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018). They employ a bilinear score function that represents relations as linear transformations acting on entity embeddings. Besides, some models incorporate neural networks to encode the semantics of knowledge graphs. ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and ConvKB (Nguyen et al., 2018) apply convolutional layers to model interactions between entities in the scoring function. Several methods (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Nathani et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020b) adopt variants of graph neural network to contextualize entity embedding with the corresponding neighborhood structure. However, above methods are not applicable to TKGs due to their ignorance of time information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.866, + 0.876, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, some attempts have extended the static KG embedding methods by incorporating time" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "418" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "information to improve the performance. Some TKGE models are extended from distance-based models (Jiang et al., 2016; Dasgupta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020a,b; Chen et al., 2022; Messner et al., 2022). They encode time information into a translation-based score function in different ways. ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021) builds on RotatE, representing time-relation pairs with rotation and scaling in the embedding space. Some models are temporal extensions of semantic matching methods. TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018) adopts recurrent neural networks (Cho et al., 2014) to learn time-aware representations of relations. DE-SimplE (Goel et al., 2020) utilizes diachronic entity embeddings to represent entities at different time steps. Furthermore, TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and TimeLowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022) perform a tensor decomposition involving the timestamp embedding with distinct embedding representations and product operators. While successfully extending to TKGs, these models ignore the rich contextual information in the graph structure." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.458, + 0.49, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another line of models focuses on the TKG structure information based on variants of graph neural networks (GNN). TeMP (Wu et al., 2020) and ST-ConvKB (Zhang et al., 2021) regard TKG as a sequence of KGs corresponding to different timestamps and use GNN variants and sequential models to generate dynamic entity representations. T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) attentively aggregates query-relevant information from each entity's local temporal adjacent facts with its temporal GNN. Moreover, SPA (Wang et al., 2022c) utilizes neural architecture search to design data-specific GNN architectures for different datasets. Other similar works (Jin et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2022) are designed for the extrapolation problem rather than TKGC, and EvoExplore (Zhang et al., 2022) focuses on local and global structure evolutions using the temporal point process. However, above methods cannot encode structural and temporal contexts simultaneously using only GNN variants. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to handle two query-relevant contexts simultaneously with PLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.846, + 0.475, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Language Model and Knowledge Graph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint pre-trained language models (PLMs) and knowledge graph approaches can be broadly classified into two categories: one that introduces knowl" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "edge from KGs to enhance PLMs on NLP downstream tasks (Zhang et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2019; He et al., 2020). However, they freeze the knowledge embedding during training PLMs, which are not real models for learning knowledge representations. To solve the above problem, K-BERT (Liu et al., 2020) and CoLAKE (Sun et al., 2020) combine entities and relations in the form of tokens with text, which are jointly fed into the PLMs. The other is to learn the knowledge embeddings from natural language texts through PLMs, called text-based methods, which are orthogonal to our work. Recent methods learn to generate entity embeddings with PLMs from entity text descriptions (Zhang et al., 2020c; Yao et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021a). Specially, KEPLER (Wang et al., 2021b) encodes textual entity descriptions with jointly optimizing KE and language modeling objectives. LMKE (Wang et al., 2022b) and SimKGC (Wang et al., 2022a) introduce efficient contrastive learning to improve the performance of text-based methods. But none of these models consider the temporal aspect of knowledge graphs. ECOLA (Han et al., 2022) uses PLMs to enhance temporal knowledge graph embeddings with temporally relevant texts. Nevertheless, not all facts have summary texts in the practical application. Besides, above approaches focus on the combination of structured knowledge and unstructured text, which is fundamentally different from our method focusing on the contextual information of the TKG subgraph." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.597, + 0.803, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Notations and Task Definition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.623, + 0.885, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A temporal knowledge graph (TKG) \\(\\mathcal{G}\\) can be viewed as a multi-relational, directed graph with timestamped edges between nodes (entities). Each event (fact) in the \\(\\mathcal{G} = \\{G_0,G_1,\\dots ,G_T\\}\\) can be represented as a quadruple \\((s,r,o,t)\\) or \\((s_t,r_t,o_t)\\), corresponding to subject entity \\(s\\in \\mathcal{E}\\), relation type \\(r\\in \\mathcal{R}\\), object entity \\(o\\in \\mathcal{E}\\) and timestamp \\(t\\in \\mathcal{T}\\), where \\(\\mathcal{E},\\mathcal{R}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{T}\\) represent the sets of entities, relationships and timestamps, respectively. The purpose of the temporal knowledge graph completion task is to infer the missing object entity \\(o\\) given the query \\((s,r,?,t)\\), or missing subject entity \\(s\\) of the query \\((?,r,o,t)\\), \\(t\\in \\{0,\\ldots ,T\\}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.846, + 0.614, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two stages. The first step is to construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query. EET can be viewed" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "419" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "as a structured event sequence incorporating structural and temporal contextual information related to the predicted fact. Second, we present our SToKE model, which learns joint structural and temporal contextualized knowledge representations based on the constructed EET." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.192, + 0.436, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Event Evolution Tree Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.213, + 0.49, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The event evolution tree is used to transform structural and temporal contexts related to the query into a structured knowledge sequence. Specifically, for the query \\((s,r,\\ref{eq:2},t)\\), we construct an EET \\(C = \\{c_{t - m},\\dots ,c_{t - 1},c_t,c_{t + 1},\\dots ,c_{t + m}\\}\\), where \\(c_{i} = \\{s\\{(r_{i1},o_{i1}),\\dots ,(r_{in},o_{in})\\} \\}\\) denotes the fact set at timestamp \\(i\\) that the subject entity \\(s\\) participates in. We constrain the time interval between the timestamp of the query and each fact to be no more than \\(m\\). Note that in the TKGC setting, we assume there is missing data at some time point \\(t\\) but the other snapshot information is available during training (Wu et al., 2020). Hence, we integrate more temporal information from both past and future timestamps. Each fact set \\(c_{i}\\) contains at most \\(n\\) facts occurring at timestamp \\(i\\) which are composed of the subject entity \\(s\\) of the query, the 1-hop neighbor entity \\(o_i\\) and the relation \\(r_i\\) linking two entities. Each fact can be viewed as a \"Branch\" of the \\(i\\)th layer, and subject entities \\(s\\) of distinct layers constitute the \"Trunk\". We design two strategies to select \\(n\\) facts in each set \\(c_{i}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.567, + 0.489, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) Active Facts First(AFF) (Wu et al., 2020): Prefer facts that appear more often in time window \\( m \\) among neighbor facts;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.615, + 0.49, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) Repetitive Facts First(RFF) (Zhu et al., 2021): Prefer facts that have the same relation as query among neighbor facts, and the AFF strategy is followed if the number of facts does not reach \\( n \\)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.567, + 0.49, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.68, + 0.49, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2(a), the EET is constructed from the query-specific subgraph in Figure 1(a) \\((m = 1, n = 2)\\). The query's subject entity China is shared by each event in this EET structure, connecting distinct events in both structural and temporal dimensions. Section 4.2.2 shows the reason for China's ability to bridge different dimensional facts from a fine-grained perspective. Similarly, for the query \\((?, r, o, t)\\), the fact set \\(c_i\\) is defined by \\(\\{o\\{(\\dot{r}_{i1}, s_{i1}), \\dots, (\\dot{r}_{in}, s_{in})\\}\\}\\), where \\(\\dot{r}\\) denotes the inverse relation of \\(r\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.388, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 The Proposed SToKE Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, the overall framework of SToKE has three main components. The first part is" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "an embedding layer to learn initial knowledge representations with three distinct embeddings. The second part is a mask transformer encoder to model the interactions among facts in different dimensional contexts and learn contextualized knowledge representations. The third part is a prediction layer to infer the missing entity based on the hidden representation of the [MASK] token." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.223, + 0.884, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.1 Learning Initial Knowledge Embeddings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.242, + 0.884, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The critical challenge is how to preserve the temporal information of the EET in the knowledge representations. We add a novel temporal embedding to focus on the relative position and absolute displacement of facts in the temporal dimension." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.332, + 0.885, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Token Embedding Similar to BERT, we use two special tokens, i.e., [CLS] and [SEP], as the beginning and end of the text, respectively. We employ the [MASK] token to mask the missing entity of the given query and align the different lengths of text with [PAD] token. As shown in Figure 2(a), we treat each fact component in the EET as individual tokens and unroll the tree structure in absolute position order to obtain a new input text, \\( S = \\{e_0, e_1, \\ldots, e_{l-1}\\} \\), where \\( e \\) represents entity, relation or special tokens, and \\( l \\) is the max sequence length. However, some tokens consisting of multiple words, such as Intend_to_cooperate, will lose original semantics as part of the event while being tokenized with the BERT vocabulary. Hence, we create two new lookup tables for entities and relations, denoted by \\( T_{ent} \\) and \\( T_{rel} \\). We add four special tokens and consider the inverse relation of \\( r \\) for query \\( (?, r, o, t) \\), so the entity lookup table \\( T_{ent} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(|\\mathcal{E}|+4) \\times d} \\), and the relation lookup table \\( T_{rel} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{2|\\mathcal{R}| \\times d} \\), where \\( d \\) is the hidden size, \\( |\\mathcal{E}| \\) and \\( |\\mathcal{R}| \\) are the total number of elements in the entity set and relation set, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Temporal Embedding To exploit the order information of tokens in the sequence, BERT adds an absolute position embedding. However, only considering the absolute position index will disrupt the temporal order of the facts occurring in the EET. Taking the input text in Figure 2(b) as an example, although Intend_to_cooperate and Japan are inserted after Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and (China, Sign_formal_agreements, [MASK]) are both events occurring at the same time and should have consistent temporal location information. To solve above issue, we present a temporal position embedding" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "420" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.087, + 0.868, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.373, + 0.889, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The framework of our proposed SToKE model. Suppose (a) is our constructed EET from the subgraph in Figure 1. Our SToKE consists of three components: Part (b) is to convert the EET into an embedding representation with the temporal position and displacement information. Part (c) is to learn contextualized knowledge representations with the structural matrix. And part (d) is to predict the missing entity with the [MASK] token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.456, + 0.489, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to replace the origin absolute position embedding of BERT. Specifically, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan have the same temporal position indexes 5 and 6 as Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], rather than absolute position indexes 7 and 8. From the view of temporal order, the above two events are equivalent to occurring at the same timestamp." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.569, + 0.49, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, the temporal position embedding considers the relative temporal position of tokens in the text, ignoring the absolute temporal gap between timestamps of the query and each event. Concretely, we add a temporal displacement embedding as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.68, + 0.489, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {E} _ {j} = \\boldsymbol {W} _ {\\Delta t} (\\boldsymbol {e} _ {j} + \\boldsymbol {\\tau} _ {| \\Delta t _ {j} |}), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.175, + 0.714, + 0.437, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{r} \\pmb {W} _ {\\Delta t} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\pmb {W} _ {p a s t} & \\Delta t _ {j} < 0 \\\\ \\pmb {W} _ {n o w} & \\Delta t _ {j} = 0 \\\\ \\pmb {W} _ {f u t u r e} & \\Delta t _ {j} > 0 \\end{array} \\right., \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.492, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\Delta t_{j} = t_{j} - t_{query}\\), \\(e_j\\in \\mathbb{R}^d\\) is the temporal position embedding, and \\(j\\) is the temporal position index. We learn the discrete embedding of temporal displacement \\(\\tau_{|\\Delta t_j|}\\in \\mathbb{R}^d\\), and consider the sign of the displacement by applying different weights \\(\\pmb{W}_{\\Delta t}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d}\\). Then, we follow the segment embeddings of BERT, and treat each input text as one sentence with the same segment tag. At last, we sum the above three embeddings to get the final" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.455, + 0.883, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "embeddings \\(X \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}\\), and feed it to the mask transformer encoder." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.507, + 0.883, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.2 Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.532, + 0.886, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to learn contextualized embeddings of the missing entity, we propose the mask transformer encoder, which differs from the BERT block by introducing the structural matrix \\(M\\) to restrict the self-attention area. Specifically, the matrix \\(M\\) controls the dependencies among structural and temporal contextual facts, making our model feasible and efficient. As shown in the left part of Figure 2(c), the row and column of the matrix are absolute position indexes, where blue dots mean visible and white dots mean invisible. Specifically, three tokens China, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan interact with each other because they are components of the same fact. Therefore the points in the matrix where their corresponding indexes (1, 2 and 3) cross are blue. In contrast, Japan should not be affected by Express_accord since they are the object and relation of two facts, respectively. The points where their corresponding indexes (3 and 10) intersect are white. Hence, the structural matrix \\(M \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times l}\\) is defined as shown below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.923 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {M} [ a, b ] = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} 0, & \\text {i f} e _ {a} \\ominus e _ {b} \\\\ - \\infty , & \\text {o t h e r s .} \\end{array} \\right., \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "421" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "here, \\( e_a \\ominus e_b \\) indicates that \\( e_a \\) and \\( e_b \\) are in the same \"Branch\" or \"Trunk\" mentioned in Section 4.1, which means \\( e_a \\) and \\( e_b \\) are visible to each other, \\( a \\) and \\( b \\) are the absolute position indexes. In particular, the [CLS] and [SEP] tokens are also treated as a part of \"Trunk\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.184, + 0.49, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moreover, the mask transformer encoder is stacked by \\(L\\) mask self-attention layers, which maps the input embeddings \\(\\mathbf{X}\\) to contextual representations \\(\\pmb{H}^{(L)}\\), where \\(\\pmb{X}\\), \\(\\pmb{H}^{(L)} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}\\). At each layer, we also use three independent linear transformation matrices, \\(\\pmb{W}_q^i, \\pmb{W}_k^i, \\pmb{W}_v^i \\in \\mathbb{R}^{d \\times d'}\\), to transform the input embeddings \\(\\pmb{X}\\) into queries, keys, and values of the \\(i\\)-th scaled dot-product attention head, where \\(d' = \\frac{d}{K}\\), and \\(i = 1, 2, \\ldots, K\\). The specific function is shown below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.359, + 0.489, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {H} ^ {i} = f \\left(\\frac {\\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {q} ^ {i}\\right) \\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {k} ^ {i}\\right) ^ {T}}{\\sqrt {d ^ {\\prime}}} + \\boldsymbol {M}\\right) \\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {v} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.414, + 0.489, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( H^{i} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d'} \\) is the output representation of corresponding attention head, \\( f \\) is the softmax function, and we cascade them to get the output \\( H \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d} \\). When \\( M[a, b] = -\\infty \\), the softmax function makes the attention weight to zero, preventing token \\( e_{a} \\) from computing the attention score of token \\( e_{b} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.53, + 0.49, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As the example illustrated in Figure 2(c), \\( h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)} \\) is affected by \\( h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)} \\), and obtain the information of \\( h_{\\mathrm{Japan}}^{(j)} \\) indirectly through \\( h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)} \\). Meanwhile, \\( h_{\\mathrm{Botswana}}^{(j - 1)} \\) can pass information to \\( h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)} \\) through \\( h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j)} \\) and \\( h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)} \\). Similarly, Intend_to_cooperate and Express Accord tokens also have an effect on [MASK]. Thus, the [MASK] token incorporates the information of structural neighboring fact (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and temporal adjacency fact (China, Express Accord, Botswana). The China token acts as a \"bridge\" between facts of different dimensions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.751, + 0.405, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.3 Predicting the Missing Entity" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.773, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As described in Section 4.1, we create two training instances for each fact, one by replacing the missing object entity of query \\((s,r,\\?,t)\\) with a special token [MASK], and the other by replacing the subject entity of query \\((?,r,o,t)\\) with the [MASK] token. Then we treat the TKGC task as a mask prediction problem, and input the final contextual embedding \\(h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(L)}\\) into the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) decoder to predict the occurrence probabili" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.082, + 0.883, + 0.137 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Datasets|E||R|NtrainNvalidNtest|T|
ICEWS147,12823072,8268,9418,963365
ICEWS05-1510,488251368,96246,27546,0924,017
GDELT500202,735,685341,961341,961366
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.146, + 0.884, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Dataset Statistics of three datasets. (\\(N_{train}\\), \\(N_{valid}\\) and \\(N_{test}\\) are the number of facts in training, validation and test sets.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.216, + 0.645, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ties of all entities:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.242, + 0.884, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np (\\mathbf {e}) = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(\\left(h _ {\\text {[ M A S K ]}} ^ {(L)} \\boldsymbol {w} _ {1} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {1}\\right) \\boldsymbol {w} _ {2} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {2}\\right), \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.279, + 0.884, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\pmb{w}_1\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d}\\), \\(\\pmb{b}_1\\in \\mathbb{R}^d\\) are the parameters of the first linear layer, and \\(\\pmb{w}_2\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times (|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)}\\), \\(\\pmb{b}_2\\in \\mathbb{R}^{(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)}\\) are the parameters of second." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.341, + 0.704, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Training Objective" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.362, + 0.884, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We regard the mask prediction problem as a multiclass classification task and use the cross-entropy function to calculate the loss during the training process:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.557, + 0.439, + 0.883, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = - \\sum_ {(s, r, o, t)} \\log p (o _ {t}) + \\log p (s _ {t}), \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.488, + 0.882, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\((s,r,o,t)\\in \\mathcal{G}\\) represents the known facts in the training set, \\(p(*)\\) represents the probability scores of corresponding entities obtained from Eq.(4)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.549, + 0.656, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.576, + 0.715, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.598, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our model on three typical datasets commonly used in previous studies, namely ICEWS14, ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018) and GDELT (Trivedi et al., 2017). Dataset statistics are described in Table 1. For ICEWS (Boschee et al., 2015), a well-established event-based datasets, we use two subsets corresponding to facts from 2014/1/1 to 2014/12/31 and facts from 2005/1/1 to 2015/12/31, i.e., ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15. For GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013), we use the subset provided by Trivedi et al. (2017) corresponding to facts from 2015/4/1 to 2016/3/31. Finally, we split all datasets into train, validation and test set with the same partitioning by Goel et al. (2020). And we report the link prediction performance on two evaluation metrics under the time-wise filtered setting (Goel et al., 2020): MRR and Hits@k (1, 3, 10). More details about metrics and implementation are summarized in Appendix A and B, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "422" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodICEWS14ICEWS05-15GDELT
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
TransE (2013).280.094-.637.294.090-.663----
DisMult (2015).441.325.498.668.457.338.515.691.210.133.224.365
ComplEx (2016).442.440.430.664.464.347.524.696.213.133.225.366
Simple (2018).458.341.516.687.478.359.539.708.206.124.220.366
TTransE (2016).255.074-.601.271.084-.616.115.000.160.318
TeRo (2020).562.468.621.732.586.469.668.795.245.154.264.420
ChronoR (2021).625.547.669.773.675.596.723.820----
RotateQVS (2022).591.507.642.754.633.529.709.813.270.175.293.458
BoxTE (2022).613.528.664.763.667.582.719.820.352.269.377.511
TA-DisMult (2018).477.363-.686.474.346-.728.206.124.219.365
DE-SimplE (2020).526.418.592.725.513.392.578.748.230.141.248.403
TNTComplEx (2020).620.520.660.760.670.590.710.810.223.142.237.379
TeLM (2021).625.545.673.774.678.599.728.823----
Time-LowFER (2022).623.549.671.757.638.555.690.791----
TeMP (2020).601.478.681.828.691.566.782.917.275.191.297.437
T-GAP (2021).610.509.677.790.670.568.743.845----
SPA (concurrent work).658.544.737.857.713.580.820.933.360.282.384.510
SToKE.659.574.693.803.712.605.790.885.371.290.399.525
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.346, + 0.883, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Performance comparison on three benchmark datasets. The best and second best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively. Results are taken from the responding literature, and \"-\" means not reported." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.4, + 0.236, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.421, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare our model with representative static KG embeddings: TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) and ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), existing advanced TKGE approaches, including distance-based extensions: TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), TeRo (Xu et al., 2020b), ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021), RotateQVS (Chen et al., 2022) and BoxTE (Messner et al., 2022), extensions of semantic matching methods: TA-DisMult (García-Durán et al., 2018), DE-SimpleE (Goel et al., 2020), TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and Time-LowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022), and GNN-based methods: TeMP (Wu et al., 2020), T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) and concurrent work SPA (Wang et al., 2022c). Among the above baselines, GNN-based methods focus on query-relevant contextual information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.722, + 0.266, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 reports the link prediction results of all methods on three benchmark datasets. We can observe that SToKE consistently outperforms the baselines on all datasets. Especially on the GDELT dataset, our model achieves improvements of \\(5.4\\%\\) in MRR and \\(7.8\\%\\) in Hits@1 over the best baseline. The possible reason is that the GDELT dataset is substantially denser (the training set contains about 2.7 million facts for 500 entities, 20 relations), and thus involves richer structural and temporal contextual information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.4, + 0.885, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In general, most temporal models perform much better than the static KGE methods since they consider temporal information in distinct ways. Specifically, the temporal extensions of static methods outperform the original counterpart for TKGC task, e.g., TeRo and TransE, DE-SimplE and SimplE, suggesting that it is feasible to incorporate temporal information into the embeddings or scoring functions. Among temporal extensions of semantic matching methods, TeLM achieves the best performance on ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15 due to its more expressive multi-vector embedding for modeling entities, relations and timestamps of TKGE. For distance-based TKGE approaches, ChronoR and BoxTE outperform other methods because they incorporate temporal information into translation model variants, i.e., rotational or spatiotranslational score functions. Overall, both types of TKGE methods achieve good results on this task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GNN-based methods perform strongly on three datasets, especially achieving the best results other than our model on Hits@3 and Hits@10 metrics, most notably because they additionally consider query-relevant contextual information to infer the missing facts. However, query-relevant facts may introduce knowledge noise effects, causing GNN approaches to be slightly worse than some TKGE models on the Hits@1 metric. There is no doubt that our model achieves better results because we consider both structural and temporal facts on inference. We construct the input text by filtering out some relevant facts through heuristic strategies," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "423" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.082, + 0.875, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Query: (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29) Answer: B
Layer2014-1-272014-1-29
12ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
-----.691.138.171--
11ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.256----.097.065.083.021.034
10ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.068.066.282.057.199.030----
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.207, + 0.883, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: A partial input text related to the query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), where \\( A \\), \\( B \\) and \\( C \\) represent South_Korea, North_Korea and Japan, respectively. We only list the attention scores with bolded token as the query value in each layer." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.272, + 0.472, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsICEWS14
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SToKE.659.574.693.803
- SC.647.556.688.792
- TC.543.428.593.755
+AFF.641.550.678.796
- TE.641.557.675.791
- SM.634.547.669.778
+ BERT-large.662.576.700.809
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.408, + 0.486, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Performance of different variants on ICEWS14." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.451, + 0.49, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which reduces the noise effect to some extent and allows our model to achieve the best results on the Hits@1 metric. Meanwhile, heuristic strategies may also ignore some inactive entities as query answers (Wu et al., 2020), which makes our model slightly less effective than TeMP on Hits@10. Furthermore, the performance of our model still shows strong competitiveness compared to the concurrent work. SPA designs specific GNN architectures for different datasets, while we use a unified BERT architecture to explore TKG's topological and temporal properties simultaneously." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.659, + 0.281, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.682, + 0.49, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Table 4, we conduct ablation experiments on ICEWS14, and discuss the effects of different variants as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "EET Variants. The third block shows the results corresponding to the different construction methods of EET in the first step. - SC (Structural Contexts) indicates that we construct the EET only considering temporal adjacency facts associated with the query, ignoring the interactions between facts within the same timestamp, i.e., making the hyperparameter \\( n \\) to 1. Similarly, - TC (Temporal Contexts) means we only incorporate concurrent facts with the query into the EET, making \\( m \\) to 0. The results demonstrate that both structural and" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.276, + 0.885, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "temporal contexts in the query-specific subgraph contribute to the prediction, which exactly validates our motivation. \\(+AFF\\) indicates that we replace the RFF strategy with the AFF strategy mentioned in Section 4.1, which implies that the RFF heuristic has the advantage of exploring neighboring entities related to the query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.4, + 0.885, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model Variants. We use an absolute position embedding and a fully connected matrix instead of the temporal embedding (TE) and the structural matrix (SM), and denote them by - TE and - SM, respectively. It can be seen that the performance of two model variants decreases a lot, proving the validity of two model components. Besides, we use a larger pre-trained BERT-large model to replace the original BERT-base. The more parameters fully explore the query-related contexts, resulting in a performance improvement, which indicates that our model can fine-tune other pre-trained BERT models for the link prediction task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.624, + 0.645, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.5 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to show how SToKE learns contextual information related to the query, we provide an example in Table 3 from the test set of ICEWS14. When facing query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), the model tries to find the answer from its relevant contextual facts. Due to the limitations of the structural matrix, the [MASK] token puts more attention on the \\( A \\) token at the 12th layer. Through attention scores at the 11th layer, it can be observed that \\( A \\) does not assign a higher score to \\( C \\) at the same timestamp but focuses on its adjacent timestamped \\( A \\) token. Moreover, the \\( A \\) token at 2014-1-27 aggregates the hidden information of \\( B \\) and passes it to the [MASK] token through the \\( A \\) at 2014-1-29, which illustrates the reason why \\( A \\) as a \"Trunk\" can \"bridge\" different contexts mentioned in Section 4.1. We argue that the model assigns" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "424" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scores in this way because the concurrent fact \\((A, \\text{Host\\_a\\_vist}, C)\\) holds an opposite meaning to the query, while the relation Engage_in_negotiation of temporal adjacent fact is typically accompanied by Criticize_or_denounce. The example also verifies that our model can explore both structural and temporal contexts related to the query." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.213, + 0.248, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.241, + 0.49, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel model for the temporal knowledge graph completion task named SToKE, which learns contextualized knowledge representations in terms of joint structural and temporal dimensions. Unlike other GNN-based methods, our model uses a unified BERT architecture to simultaneously explore contextual information of the TKG substructure, i.e., query-relevant structural and temporal neighboring facts. To enable BERT to handle the TKG, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query, and introduce temporal embedding and structural matrix to ensure the temporal order and structural dependencies among facts in EET. Through masking the missing entity of query to fine-tune the pre-trained BERT, our model outperforms other methods on three widely used datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.53, + 0.22, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.558, + 0.49, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our model simultaneously encodes structural and temporal contexts of the TKG substructure, and uses heuristic strategies to select a portion of query-relevant facts as input texts for PLMs. We can achieve stunning results with these selected facts. However, this work only considers the query-relevant one-hop neighbor facts to achieve a good performance improvement, but ignores the benefits of multi-hop neighbor facts. We leave it for future work to verify the effectiveness of multi-hop paths." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.735, + 0.287, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.762, + 0.49, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 62025208 and 61932001." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.841, + 0.214, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.866, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS, pages 2787-2795." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icews coded event data. Harvard Data-verse, 12." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kai Chen, Ye Wang, Yitong Li, and Aiping Li. 2022. Rotateqs: Representing temporal information as rotations in quaternion vector space for temporal knowledge graph completion. In ACL, pages 5843-5857." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.212, + 0.885, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulçehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In EMNLP, pages 1724-1734." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.301, + 0.885, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In EMNLP, pages 2001-2011." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.364, + 0.885, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In AAAI, pages 1811-1818." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.413, + 0.885, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.476, + 0.885, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ioannis Dikeoulias, Saadullah Amin, and Günter Neumann. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with low-rank and model-agnostic representations. In RepL4NLP@ACL, pages 111-120." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.539, + 0.885, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yifu Gao, Linhui Feng, Zhigang Kan, Yi Han, Linbo Qiao, and Dongsheng Li. 2022. Modeling precursors for temporal knowledge graph reasoning via autoencoder structure. In IJCAI, pages 2044-2051." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.602, + 0.885, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 4816-4821." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.664, + 0.885, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rishab Goel, Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Marcus A. Brubaker, and Pascal Poupart. 2020. Diachronic embedding for temporal knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 3988-3995." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Han, Ruotong Liao, Beiyan Liu, Yao Zhang, Zifeng Ding, Heinz Köpl, Hinrich Schütze, and Volker Tresp. 2022. Enhanced temporal knowledge embeddings with contextualized language representations. CoRR, abs/2203.09590." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.803, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bin He, Di Zhou, Jinghui Xiao, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, Nicholas Jing Yuan, and Tong Xu. 2020. BERT-MK: Integrating graph contextualized knowledge into pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 2281-2290." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.879, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaoxiong Ji, Shirui Pan, Erik Cambria, Pekka Marttinen, and Philip S. Yu. 2022. A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "425" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33(2):494-514." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.123, + 0.487, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In COLING, pages 1715-1724." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.186, + 0.487, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In EMNLP, pages 6669-6683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.249, + 0.487, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jaehun Jung, Jinhong Jung, and U Kang. 2021. Learning to walk across time for interpretable temporal knowledge graph completion. In KDD, pages 786-795." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.312, + 0.487, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Seyed Mehran Kazemi and David Poole. 2018. Simple embedding for link prediction in knowledge graphs. In NeurIPS, pages 4289-4300." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.362, + 0.486, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timothee Lacroix, Guillaume Obozinski, and Nicolas Usunier. 2020. Tensor decompositions for temporal knowledge base completion. In *ICLR*." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.412, + 0.487, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kalev Leetaru and Philip A Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone. In ISA Annual Convention." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.462, + 0.487, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In SIGIR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.538, + 0.487, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 2181-2187." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.601, + 0.487, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Qi Ju, Haotang Deng, and Ping Wang. 2020. K-BERT: enabling language representation with knowledge graph. In AAAI, pages 2901-2908." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.663, + 0.487, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Johannes Messner, Ralph Abboud, and Ismail Ilkan Ceylan. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph completion using box embeddings. In AAAI, pages 7779-7787." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.714, + 0.487, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In ACL, pages 4710-4723." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.487, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dai Quoc Nguyen, Tu Dinh Nguyen, Dat Quoc Nguyen, and Dinh Q. Phung. 2018. A novel embedding model for knowledge base completion based on convolutional neural network. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 327-333." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert L. Logan IV, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 43-54." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Anthony Colas, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2021. Chronor: Rotation based temporal knowledge graph embedding. In AAAI, pages 6471-6479." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.152, + 0.882, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In ESWC." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.218, + 0.882, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Xipeng Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Yaru Hu, Xuanjing Huang, and Zheng Zhang. 2020. Colake: Contextualized language and knowledge embedding. In COLING, pages 3660-3670." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.284, + 0.882, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.337, + 0.882, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rakshit Trivedi, Hanjun Dai, Yichen Wang, and Le Song. 2017. Know-evolve: Deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs. In ICML, pages 3462-3471." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.402, + 0.882, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In ICML, pages 2071-2080." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.469, + 0.882, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bo Wang, Tao Shen, Guodong Long, Tianyi Zhou, Ying Wang, and Yi Chang. 2021a. Structure-augmented text representation learning for efficient knowledge graph completion. In WWW, pages 1737-1748." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.535, + 0.882, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Liang Wang, Wei Zhao, Zhuoyu Wei, and Jingming Liu. 2022a. Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In ACL, pages 4281-4294." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.602, + 0.882, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021b. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.693, + 0.882, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xintao Wang, Qianyu He, Jiaqing Liang, and Yanghua Xiao. 2022b. Language models as knowledge embeddings. In *IJCAI*, pages 2291-2297." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.746, + 0.882, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Wang, Haotong Du, Quanming Yao, and Xuelong Li. 2022c. Search to pass messages for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 6189-6201." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI, pages 1112-1119." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiapeng Wu, Meng Cao, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Temp: Temporal message passing for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 5730-5746." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "426" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chengjin Xu, Yung-Yu Chen, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Jens Lehmann. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph completion using a linear temporal regularizer and multivector embeddings. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 2569-2578." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.162, + 0.488, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Jens Lehmann, and Hamed Shariat Yazdi. 2020a. Temporal knowledge graph embedding model based on additive time series decomposition. In ISWC, pages 654-671." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.238, + 0.488, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Hamed Shariat Yazdi, and Jens Lehmann. 2020b. Tero: A time-aware knowledge graph embedding via temporal rotation. In COLING, pages 1583-1593." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.3, + 0.488, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.363, + 0.488, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. KG-BERT: BERT for knowledge graph completion. CoRR, abs/1909.03193." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.413, + 0.488, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Zhiyi Deng, and Jie Shao. 2021. Spatial-temporal attention network for temporal knowledge graph completion. In DASFAA, pages 207-223." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.476, + 0.488, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Yongpan Sheng, and Jie Shao. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph representation learning with local and global evolutions. Knowledge-Based Systems, 251:109234." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.538, + 0.488, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiawei Zhang, Haopeng Zhang, Congying Xia, and Li Sun. 2020a. Graph-bert: Only attention is needed for learning graph representations. CoRR, abs/2001.05140." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.601, + 0.488, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, Hengshu Zhu, Zhi-Ping Shi, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020b. Relational graph neural network with hierarchical attention for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 9612-9619." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.677, + 0.488, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: enhanced language representation with informative entities. In ACL, pages 1441-1451." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.74, + 0.488, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyuan Zhang, Xiaoqian Liu, Yi Zhang, Qi Su, Xu Sun, and Bin He. 2020c. Pretrain-kge: Learning knowledge representation from pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 259-266." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.802, + 0.488, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhan. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In AAAI." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.084, + 0.616, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.11, + 0.884, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) and the proportion of correct quadruples ranked in top 1, 3 and 10 (Hits@1, Hits@3, and Hits@10) to evaluate the model performance. There are two filtered setting, static filtered (Bordes et al., 2013) and time-wise filtered (Goel et al., 2020). The static filtered setting is not suitable for TKGs. For example, given a test query \\((s,r,\\?,t)\\) with the answer \\(o\\), assume that there are two other quadruples \\((s,r,o',t')\\) and \\((s,r,o'',t)\\), where \\(t' < t\\). The static filtered setting ignores time information and removes both \\(o'\\) and \\(o''\\) from the candidates. However, the fact \\((s,r,o')\\) is temporally valid on \\(t'\\), instead of timesamp \\(t\\). In this way, the filtered setting wrongly removes quite a few quadruples and thus leads to higher ranking scores. A more appropriate timewise filtered setting is only to remove \\(o''\\) from the candidates. Specifically, for each test quadruple \\((s,r,o,t)\\), we create two queries: \\((s,r,\\?,t)\\) and \\((?,r,o,t)\\). For the first query, the model ranks all entities in \\(o \\cup C\\) with their scores from Eq.(4), where \\(C = \\{o':o' \\in \\mathcal{E}, (s,r,o',t) \\notin \\mathcal{G}\\}\\). We follow a similar approach for the second query." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.492, + 0.816, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Detailed Experimental Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.518, + 0.884, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We choose pre-trained BERT-base model (Devlin et al., 2019) with \\( L = 12 \\) layers, \\( K = 12 \\) self-attention heads and \\( d = 768 \\) hidden dimension of embeddings as the initialization. We select the optimal hyperparameters by grid searching according to MRR on the validation set, and set the following hyperparameters in fine-tuning with Adam: batch size: 128, learning rate: 2e-5 and dropout rate: 0.1. We use the RFF strategy to construct the event evelution tree. In EET, the length of time window \\( m \\) and the number of concurrent facts \\( n \\) are set to 10 and 2 for ICEWS14, 14 and 2 for ICEWS05-15, 5 and 2 for GDELT dataset. The length of input text \\( l \\) is set to 107, 147 and 57 for ICEWS and GDELT respectively, where \\( l = (m * 2 + 1) * (n * 2 + 1) + 2 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, our SToKE consists of a embedding layer, a mask transformer encoder and a MLP. The parameters of embedding layer consists of token embedding \\((|\\mathcal{E}| + 4,d)\\), segment embedding \\((2,d)\\), temporal position and displacement embedding \\((l + |\\mathcal{T}|,d)\\) and three matrices \\(W_{\\Delta t}3d^2\\). The mask transformer encoder contains 12 mask self attention layers, where the parameters of each layer consist of three matrices \\(W_{q},W_{k},W_{v}\\), a concatenated linear layer, where the parameter quantity of" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "427" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
GPU ResourceNVIDIA RTX A6000
HyperparameterSearch BoundBest Setup
length of time window mchoice{5, 10, 12, 14}10(ICEWS14), 14(ICEWS05-15), 5(GDELT)
number of concurrent facts nchoice{1, 2, 4}2
length of input text lchoice{57, 107, 147}107(ICEWS14), 147(ICEWS05-15), 57(GDELT)
number of epochschoice{30, 50}30 (ICEWS05-15, GDELT), 50 (ICEWS14)
batch sizechoice{32, 64, 128}128
learning ratechoice{2e-5, 5e-4}2e-5
droupout ratechoice{0.1, 0.2}0.1
number of model parameters-98.6M(ICEWS14), 106.6M(ICEWS05-15), 88.4M(GDELT)
gpu hours-12h(ICEWS14), 40h(ICEWS05-15), 60h(GDELT)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.314, + 0.267, + 0.683, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Additional implementation details of SToKE." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.306, + 0.487, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.438, + 0.46, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Parameter sensitivity on our SToKE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.477, + 0.49, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "each part is \\(d^2\\), and the FFN is \\(8d^{2}\\). The number of MLP parameters is \\(d^{2} + d(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)\\). Ignoring Layernorm and Bias parameters, the amount of parameters is \\(148d^{2} + d(2|\\mathcal{E}| + |\\mathcal{T}| + l + 10)\\). Finally, we implement our model in PyTorch with NVIDIA RTX A6000. As shown in Table 5, we report the hyperparameter search bounds and best configurations along with thegpu resource." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.617, + 0.325, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Sensitivity Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.643, + 0.493, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report the performance changes on the ICEWS14 dataset by varying the hyper-parameters, including the length of time window \\( m \\) and the number of concurrent facts \\( n \\). Figure 3(a) shows the performance with various time window lengths. It can be observed that our model performs better with the longer time window \\( m \\) used. However, MRR is relatively stable at around 10, and considering the computation cost, we set \\( m \\) to 10 on this dataset. As shown in Figure 3(b), the model performance rises and falls as the number of neighboring facts within the same timestamp increases. The probable reason is that too many concurrent facts bring knowledge noise, which affects the model's judgment of the missing fact." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "428" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.146, + 0.24, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.171, + 0.554, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.188, + 0.882, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are no potential risks in our work. We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.229, + 0.697, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.247, + 0.358, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract and 1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.273, + 0.67, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.29, + 0.233, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.316, + 0.489, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.338, + 0.641, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.363, + 0.531, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.382, + 0.658, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.407, + 0.78, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.424, + 0.882, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.466, + 0.882, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.531, + 0.882, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.574, + 0.882, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.622, + 0.882, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use public datasets and do not use any related content, so it is not necessary to take this step in our work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.663, + 0.882, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.698, + 0.333, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.723, + 0.882, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.805, + 0.333, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.824, + 0.878, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "429" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.495, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.106, + 0.554, + 0.122 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Main Results, 4.4 Ablation Study and 4.5 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.131, + 0.88, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.19, + 0.88, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.249, + 0.88, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4.3 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.324, + 0.88, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.131, + 0.88, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.4, + 0.878, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.448, + 0.88, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.507, + 0.88, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.582, + 0.88, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.657, + 0.873, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.7, + 0.88, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.448, + 0.88, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "430" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e09e0eb98532178b49c89a789916c6c30f8d4e4a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/75d1f7d8-9259-45ff-9159-6adaa62b7d87_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3040e12273556e8b7964e180f2ff6e52275f477f78a6edfaa594825d5b9281db +size 1303123 diff --git a/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/full.md b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c2a187a3d08659f65fc1b44fd2817e283cdbc59 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ +# Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion + +Yifu Gao $^{1}$ , Yongquan He $^{2}$ , Zhigang Kan $^{1}$ , Yi Han $^{3}$ , Linbo Qiao $^{1}$ , Dongsheng Li $^{1*}$ + +$^{1}$ National Key Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Computing, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China + +2 Meituan, Beijing, China + +3 College of Meteorology and Oceanography, National University of Defense Technology {gaoyifu, kanzhigang13, hanyi12, qiao.linbo, dsli}@nudt.edu.cn heyongquan@meituan.com + +# Abstract + +Temporal knowledge graph completion that predicts missing links for incomplete temporal knowledge graphs (TKG) is gaining increasing attention. Most existing works have achieved good results by incorporating time information into static knowledge graph embedding methods. However, they ignore the contextual nature of the TKG structure, i.e., query-specific subgraph contains both structural and temporal neighboring facts. This paper presents the SToKE, a novel method that employs the pre-trained language model (PLM) to learn joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings. Specifically, we first construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query to enable PLMs to handle the TKG, which can be seen as a structured event sequence recording query-relevant structural and temporal contexts. We then propose a novel temporal embedding and structural matrix to learn the time information and structural dependencies of facts in EET. Finally, we formulate TKG completion as a mask prediction problem by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained language models. Experimental results on three widely used datasets show the superiority of our model. + +# 1 Introduction + +Knowledge graphs have facilitated many real-world applications, including question answering, dialogue systems and speech recognition (Ji et al., 2022). The rapidly growing facts on the knowledge graph often show dynamic relations or interactions of entities along the timeline, which creates the need for introducing the concept of temporal knowledge graph (TKG). Such TKGs often suffer from incompleteness due to their own dynamic features. Therefore, the temporal knowledge graph completion (TKGC) task that predicts missing links across these TKGs is gaining increasing attention from researchers (Boschee et al., 2015). + +![](images/373659d4c11eb3b3e88fcde701d9a1cf558a4b0aae9f688194fe4e6e748259df.jpg) +Figure 1: Part (a) shows an example of a query-specific subgraph, which consists of the facts where the query's subject China participates at the same or different timestamps. Part (b) shows the event evolutionary tree converted from the subgraph in Part (a). + +Recent works on the TKGC task have primarily focused on static knowledge graph embedding (KGE) methods. They extend KGE models by encoding time information into conventional score functions in different ways (Jiang et al., 2016; García-Durán et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020b; Lacroix et al., 2020; Messner et al., 2022), called temporal knowledge graph embedding (TKGE). Although TKGE methods outperform static KGE on this task, they mostly fail to consider the rich contextual information related to the query in the TKG structure. + +As a subgraph of TKG shown in Figure 1(a), when facing the query (China, Sign formal agreements,?, 2014-12-30), its relevant contexts include both concurrent facts within the same timestamp (solid red) and temporal adjacency facts at different timestamps (dashed blue). The structural contexts (China, Intend to cooperate, Japan, 2014-12-30) and (China, Engage in diplomatic cooperation, Iran, 2014-12-30) suggests that China may sign formal agreements with either Japan or Iran. Moreover, the temporal contexts illustrate that China has been expressing intent to cooperate with Japan for some time, making Japan a more reasonable + +answer to the query. Hence, learning knowledge embeddings that could effectively capture query-relevant structural and temporal contextual information facilitates the inference of missing facts. However, existing methods either only encode temporal adjacent facts residing in the query's local neighborhood (Jung et al., 2021), or only focus on concurrent events within the same timestamp and integrate entity representations of different timestamps with additional recurrence or attention mechanisms (Wu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). They fail to encode two query-relevant contexts simultaneously only using graph neural network variants, which requires us to solve the above problem by introducing a new architecture. Recent advances in pre-trained language models (PLMs) are able to learn word representations and graph representations through distinct structured contexts (Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a). Intuitively, PLMs can capture contextual meanings of entity and relation representations along joint structural and temporal dimensions. + +Inspired by this, we propose the SToKE, a novel BERT-based model to learn knowledge embeddings with joint structural and temporal contexts. Another challenging problem is to draw connections of query-specific substructure to natural language sentences. To handle this issue, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query as shown in Figure 1(b). The EET represents the temporal evolution in the order from "Root" to "Crown", where each layer corresponds to different timestamps. Facts occurring at the same timestamp constitute the "Branches" of this layer, and query's subject entity China acts as a "Trunk" connecting different structural and temporal adjacent facts. EET is essentially a structured event sequence that helps PLMs better understand contextual information in the query-specific subgraph. Besides, we add a novel temporal embedding in the initial embeddings to ensure the sequential order of facts appearing in the EET. Considering the knowledge noise problem caused by introducing query-relevant contexts with different dimensions, we present a structural matrix to restrict the structure dependencies between facts. Overall, this paper makes the following contributions: + +1) We propose SToKE, a novel model for the TKGC task that learns knowledge embeddings in terms of joint structural and temporal contexts via the pre-trained language model. + +2) To enable BERT-like PLMs to handle the query-specific subgraph, we propose an event evolution tree that transforms structural and temporal contexts into a structured event sequence. The temporal order and structural dependencies of facts in the EET are limited by adopting the temporal embedding and structural matrix. +3) We formulate the TKGC task as a mask prediction task by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained BERT models. +4) Our SToKE outperforms the state-of-the-art methods over three widely used datasets, which demonstrates our model's superiority. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Knowledge Graph Embedding + +KGE aims to map the entities and relations into continuous vector space and score the plausibility of a triple, which can be roughly divided into distance-based models, semantic matching models and neural network models. Distance-based models measure the plausibility of a triple as the distance between the relation-translated subject and object entity embeddings, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) and its various extensions (Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015). Especially, RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) treats each relation as a rotation from the subject to the object. Semantic matching models measure the plausibility of a fact by mining the underlying semantics between entity and relation embeddings, e.g., DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016) and SimpleE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018). They employ a bilinear score function that represents relations as linear transformations acting on entity embeddings. Besides, some models incorporate neural networks to encode the semantics of knowledge graphs. ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and ConvKB (Nguyen et al., 2018) apply convolutional layers to model interactions between entities in the scoring function. Several methods (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Nathani et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020b) adopt variants of graph neural network to contextualize entity embedding with the corresponding neighborhood structure. However, above methods are not applicable to TKGs due to their ignorance of time information. + +# 2.2 Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion + +Recently, some attempts have extended the static KG embedding methods by incorporating time + +information to improve the performance. Some TKGE models are extended from distance-based models (Jiang et al., 2016; Dasgupta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020a,b; Chen et al., 2022; Messner et al., 2022). They encode time information into a translation-based score function in different ways. ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021) builds on RotatE, representing time-relation pairs with rotation and scaling in the embedding space. Some models are temporal extensions of semantic matching methods. TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018) adopts recurrent neural networks (Cho et al., 2014) to learn time-aware representations of relations. DE-SimplE (Goel et al., 2020) utilizes diachronic entity embeddings to represent entities at different time steps. Furthermore, TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and TimeLowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022) perform a tensor decomposition involving the timestamp embedding with distinct embedding representations and product operators. While successfully extending to TKGs, these models ignore the rich contextual information in the graph structure. + +Another line of models focuses on the TKG structure information based on variants of graph neural networks (GNN). TeMP (Wu et al., 2020) and ST-ConvKB (Zhang et al., 2021) regard TKG as a sequence of KGs corresponding to different timestamps and use GNN variants and sequential models to generate dynamic entity representations. T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) attentively aggregates query-relevant information from each entity's local temporal adjacent facts with its temporal GNN. Moreover, SPA (Wang et al., 2022c) utilizes neural architecture search to design data-specific GNN architectures for different datasets. Other similar works (Jin et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2022) are designed for the extrapolation problem rather than TKGC, and EvoExplore (Zhang et al., 2022) focuses on local and global structure evolutions using the temporal point process. However, above methods cannot encode structural and temporal contexts simultaneously using only GNN variants. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to handle two query-relevant contexts simultaneously with PLMs. + +# 2.3 Language Model and Knowledge Graph + +Joint pre-trained language models (PLMs) and knowledge graph approaches can be broadly classified into two categories: one that introduces knowl + +edge from KGs to enhance PLMs on NLP downstream tasks (Zhang et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2019; He et al., 2020). However, they freeze the knowledge embedding during training PLMs, which are not real models for learning knowledge representations. To solve the above problem, K-BERT (Liu et al., 2020) and CoLAKE (Sun et al., 2020) combine entities and relations in the form of tokens with text, which are jointly fed into the PLMs. The other is to learn the knowledge embeddings from natural language texts through PLMs, called text-based methods, which are orthogonal to our work. Recent methods learn to generate entity embeddings with PLMs from entity text descriptions (Zhang et al., 2020c; Yao et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021a). Specially, KEPLER (Wang et al., 2021b) encodes textual entity descriptions with jointly optimizing KE and language modeling objectives. LMKE (Wang et al., 2022b) and SimKGC (Wang et al., 2022a) introduce efficient contrastive learning to improve the performance of text-based methods. But none of these models consider the temporal aspect of knowledge graphs. ECOLA (Han et al., 2022) uses PLMs to enhance temporal knowledge graph embeddings with temporally relevant texts. Nevertheless, not all facts have summary texts in the practical application. Besides, above approaches focus on the combination of structured knowledge and unstructured text, which is fundamentally different from our method focusing on the contextual information of the TKG subgraph. + +# 3 Notations and Task Definition + +A temporal knowledge graph (TKG) $\mathcal{G}$ can be viewed as a multi-relational, directed graph with timestamped edges between nodes (entities). Each event (fact) in the $\mathcal{G} = \{G_0,G_1,\dots ,G_T\}$ can be represented as a quadruple $(s,r,o,t)$ or $(s_t,r_t,o_t)$ , corresponding to subject entity $s\in \mathcal{E}$ , relation type $r\in \mathcal{R}$ , object entity $o\in \mathcal{E}$ and timestamp $t\in \mathcal{T}$ , where $\mathcal{E},\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ represent the sets of entities, relationships and timestamps, respectively. The purpose of the temporal knowledge graph completion task is to infer the missing object entity $o$ given the query $(s,r,?,t)$ , or missing subject entity $s$ of the query $(?,r,o,t)$ , $t\in \{0,\ldots ,T\}$ . + +# 4 Method + +As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two stages. The first step is to construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query. EET can be viewed + +as a structured event sequence incorporating structural and temporal contextual information related to the predicted fact. Second, we present our SToKE model, which learns joint structural and temporal contextualized knowledge representations based on the constructed EET. + +# 4.1 Event Evolution Tree Construction + +The event evolution tree is used to transform structural and temporal contexts related to the query into a structured knowledge sequence. Specifically, for the query $(s,r,\ref{eq:2},t)$ , we construct an EET $C = \{c_{t - m},\dots ,c_{t - 1},c_t,c_{t + 1},\dots ,c_{t + m}\}$ , where $c_{i} = \{s\{(r_{i1},o_{i1}),\dots ,(r_{in},o_{in})\} \}$ denotes the fact set at timestamp $i$ that the subject entity $s$ participates in. We constrain the time interval between the timestamp of the query and each fact to be no more than $m$ . Note that in the TKGC setting, we assume there is missing data at some time point $t$ but the other snapshot information is available during training (Wu et al., 2020). Hence, we integrate more temporal information from both past and future timestamps. Each fact set $c_{i}$ contains at most $n$ facts occurring at timestamp $i$ which are composed of the subject entity $s$ of the query, the 1-hop neighbor entity $o_i$ and the relation $r_i$ linking two entities. Each fact can be viewed as a "Branch" of the $i$ th layer, and subject entities $s$ of distinct layers constitute the "Trunk". We design two strategies to select $n$ facts in each set $c_{i}$ : + +1) Active Facts First(AFF) (Wu et al., 2020): Prefer facts that appear more often in time window $m$ among neighbor facts; +2) Repetitive Facts First(RFF) (Zhu et al., 2021): Prefer facts that have the same relation as query among neighbor facts, and the AFF strategy is followed if the number of facts does not reach $n$ . + +As shown in Figure 2(a), the EET is constructed from the query-specific subgraph in Figure 1(a) $(m = 1, n = 2)$ . The query's subject entity China is shared by each event in this EET structure, connecting distinct events in both structural and temporal dimensions. Section 4.2.2 shows the reason for China's ability to bridge different dimensional facts from a fine-grained perspective. Similarly, for the query $(?, r, o, t)$ , the fact set $c_i$ is defined by $\{o\{(\dot{r}_{i1}, s_{i1}), \dots, (\dot{r}_{in}, s_{in})\}\}$ , where $\dot{r}$ denotes the inverse relation of $r$ . + +# 4.2 The Proposed SToKE Model + +As shown in Figure 2, the overall framework of SToKE has three main components. The first part is + +an embedding layer to learn initial knowledge representations with three distinct embeddings. The second part is a mask transformer encoder to model the interactions among facts in different dimensional contexts and learn contextualized knowledge representations. The third part is a prediction layer to infer the missing entity based on the hidden representation of the [MASK] token. + +# 4.2.1 Learning Initial Knowledge Embeddings + +The critical challenge is how to preserve the temporal information of the EET in the knowledge representations. We add a novel temporal embedding to focus on the relative position and absolute displacement of facts in the temporal dimension. + +Token Embedding Similar to BERT, we use two special tokens, i.e., [CLS] and [SEP], as the beginning and end of the text, respectively. We employ the [MASK] token to mask the missing entity of the given query and align the different lengths of text with [PAD] token. As shown in Figure 2(a), we treat each fact component in the EET as individual tokens and unroll the tree structure in absolute position order to obtain a new input text, $S = \{e_0, e_1, \ldots, e_{l-1}\}$ , where $e$ represents entity, relation or special tokens, and $l$ is the max sequence length. However, some tokens consisting of multiple words, such as Intend_to_cooperate, will lose original semantics as part of the event while being tokenized with the BERT vocabulary. Hence, we create two new lookup tables for entities and relations, denoted by $T_{ent}$ and $T_{rel}$ . We add four special tokens and consider the inverse relation of $r$ for query $(?, r, o, t)$ , so the entity lookup table $T_{ent} \in \mathbb{R}^{(|\mathcal{E}|+4) \times d}$ , and the relation lookup table $T_{rel} \in \mathbb{R}^{2|\mathcal{R}| \times d}$ , where $d$ is the hidden size, $|\mathcal{E}|$ and $|\mathcal{R}|$ are the total number of elements in the entity set and relation set, respectively. + +Temporal Embedding To exploit the order information of tokens in the sequence, BERT adds an absolute position embedding. However, only considering the absolute position index will disrupt the temporal order of the facts occurring in the EET. Taking the input text in Figure 2(b) as an example, although Intend_to_cooperate and Japan are inserted after Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and (China, Sign_formal_agreements, [MASK]) are both events occurring at the same time and should have consistent temporal location information. To solve above issue, we present a temporal position embedding + +![](images/3fc079b0a81ae83f8574514a660a13f6df122ab65db9d37620cb2472428a3029.jpg) +Figure 2: The framework of our proposed SToKE model. Suppose (a) is our constructed EET from the subgraph in Figure 1. Our SToKE consists of three components: Part (b) is to convert the EET into an embedding representation with the temporal position and displacement information. Part (c) is to learn contextualized knowledge representations with the structural matrix. And part (d) is to predict the missing entity with the [MASK] token. + +to replace the origin absolute position embedding of BERT. Specifically, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan have the same temporal position indexes 5 and 6 as Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], rather than absolute position indexes 7 and 8. From the view of temporal order, the above two events are equivalent to occurring at the same timestamp. + +However, the temporal position embedding considers the relative temporal position of tokens in the text, ignoring the absolute temporal gap between timestamps of the query and each event. Concretely, we add a temporal displacement embedding as follows: + +$$ +\boldsymbol {E} _ {j} = \boldsymbol {W} _ {\Delta t} (\boldsymbol {e} _ {j} + \boldsymbol {\tau} _ {| \Delta t _ {j} |}), \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +\begin{array}{r} \pmb {W} _ {\Delta t} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \pmb {W} _ {p a s t} & \Delta t _ {j} < 0 \\ \pmb {W} _ {n o w} & \Delta t _ {j} = 0 \\ \pmb {W} _ {f u t u r e} & \Delta t _ {j} > 0 \end{array} \right., \end{array} +$$ + +where $\Delta t_{j} = t_{j} - t_{query}$ , $e_j\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is the temporal position embedding, and $j$ is the temporal position index. We learn the discrete embedding of temporal displacement $\tau_{|\Delta t_j|}\in \mathbb{R}^d$ , and consider the sign of the displacement by applying different weights $\pmb{W}_{\Delta t}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ . Then, we follow the segment embeddings of BERT, and treat each input text as one sentence with the same segment tag. At last, we sum the above three embeddings to get the final + +embeddings $X \in \mathbb{R}^{l \times d}$ , and feed it to the mask transformer encoder. + +# 4.2.2 Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings + +In order to learn contextualized embeddings of the missing entity, we propose the mask transformer encoder, which differs from the BERT block by introducing the structural matrix $M$ to restrict the self-attention area. Specifically, the matrix $M$ controls the dependencies among structural and temporal contextual facts, making our model feasible and efficient. As shown in the left part of Figure 2(c), the row and column of the matrix are absolute position indexes, where blue dots mean visible and white dots mean invisible. Specifically, three tokens China, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan interact with each other because they are components of the same fact. Therefore the points in the matrix where their corresponding indexes (1, 2 and 3) cross are blue. In contrast, Japan should not be affected by Express_accord since they are the object and relation of two facts, respectively. The points where their corresponding indexes (3 and 10) intersect are white. Hence, the structural matrix $M \in \mathbb{R}^{l \times l}$ is defined as shown below: + +$$ +\boldsymbol {M} [ a, b ] = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} 0, & \text {i f} e _ {a} \ominus e _ {b} \\ - \infty , & \text {o t h e r s .} \end{array} \right., \tag {2} +$$ + +here, $e_a \ominus e_b$ indicates that $e_a$ and $e_b$ are in the same "Branch" or "Trunk" mentioned in Section 4.1, which means $e_a$ and $e_b$ are visible to each other, $a$ and $b$ are the absolute position indexes. In particular, the [CLS] and [SEP] tokens are also treated as a part of "Trunk". + +Moreover, the mask transformer encoder is stacked by $L$ mask self-attention layers, which maps the input embeddings $\mathbf{X}$ to contextual representations $\pmb{H}^{(L)}$ , where $\pmb{X}$ , $\pmb{H}^{(L)} \in \mathbb{R}^{l \times d}$ . At each layer, we also use three independent linear transformation matrices, $\pmb{W}_q^i, \pmb{W}_k^i, \pmb{W}_v^i \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d'}$ , to transform the input embeddings $\pmb{X}$ into queries, keys, and values of the $i$ -th scaled dot-product attention head, where $d' = \frac{d}{K}$ , and $i = 1, 2, \ldots, K$ . The specific function is shown below: + +$$ +\boldsymbol {H} ^ {i} = f \left(\frac {\left(\boldsymbol {X} \boldsymbol {W} _ {q} ^ {i}\right) \left(\boldsymbol {X} \boldsymbol {W} _ {k} ^ {i}\right) ^ {T}}{\sqrt {d ^ {\prime}}} + \boldsymbol {M}\right) \left(\boldsymbol {X} \boldsymbol {W} _ {v} ^ {i}\right), \tag {3} +$$ + +where $H^{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{l \times d'}$ is the output representation of corresponding attention head, $f$ is the softmax function, and we cascade them to get the output $H \in \mathbb{R}^{l \times d}$ . When $M[a, b] = -\infty$ , the softmax function makes the attention weight to zero, preventing token $e_{a}$ from computing the attention score of token $e_{b}$ . + +As the example illustrated in Figure 2(c), $h_{[\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)}$ is affected by $h_{\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}$ , and obtain the information of $h_{\mathrm{Japan}}^{(j)}$ indirectly through $h_{\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}$ . Meanwhile, $h_{\mathrm{Botswana}}^{(j - 1)}$ can pass information to $h_{[\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)}$ through $h_{\mathrm{China}}^{(j)}$ and $h_{\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}$ . Similarly, Intend_to_cooperate and Express Accord tokens also have an effect on [MASK]. Thus, the [MASK] token incorporates the information of structural neighboring fact (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and temporal adjacency fact (China, Express Accord, Botswana). The China token acts as a "bridge" between facts of different dimensions. + +# 4.2.3 Predicting the Missing Entity + +As described in Section 4.1, we create two training instances for each fact, one by replacing the missing object entity of query $(s,r,\?,t)$ with a special token [MASK], and the other by replacing the subject entity of query $(?,r,o,t)$ with the [MASK] token. Then we treat the TKGC task as a mask prediction problem, and input the final contextual embedding $h_{[\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(L)}$ into the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) decoder to predict the occurrence probabili + +
Datasets|E||R|NtrainNvalidNtest|T|
ICEWS147,12823072,8268,9418,963365
ICEWS05-1510,488251368,96246,27546,0924,017
GDELT500202,735,685341,961341,961366
+ +Table 1: Dataset Statistics of three datasets. ( $N_{train}$ , $N_{valid}$ and $N_{test}$ are the number of facts in training, validation and test sets.) + +ties of all entities: + +$$ +p (\mathbf {e}) = \operatorname {S o f t m a x} \left(\left(h _ {\text {[ M A S K ]}} ^ {(L)} \boldsymbol {w} _ {1} + \boldsymbol {b} _ {1}\right) \boldsymbol {w} _ {2} + \boldsymbol {b} _ {2}\right), \tag {4} +$$ + +where $\pmb{w}_1\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ , $\pmb{b}_1\in \mathbb{R}^d$ are the parameters of the first linear layer, and $\pmb{w}_2\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times (|\mathcal{E}| + 4)}$ , $\pmb{b}_2\in \mathbb{R}^{(|\mathcal{E}| + 4)}$ are the parameters of second. + +# 4.3 Training Objective + +We regard the mask prediction problem as a multiclass classification task and use the cross-entropy function to calculate the loss during the training process: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = - \sum_ {(s, r, o, t)} \log p (o _ {t}) + \log p (s _ {t}), \tag {5} +$$ + +$(s,r,o,t)\in \mathcal{G}$ represents the known facts in the training set, $p(*)$ represents the probability scores of corresponding entities obtained from Eq.(4). + +# 5 Experiments + +# 5.1 Dataset and Metrics + +We evaluate our model on three typical datasets commonly used in previous studies, namely ICEWS14, ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018) and GDELT (Trivedi et al., 2017). Dataset statistics are described in Table 1. For ICEWS (Boschee et al., 2015), a well-established event-based datasets, we use two subsets corresponding to facts from 2014/1/1 to 2014/12/31 and facts from 2005/1/1 to 2015/12/31, i.e., ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15. For GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013), we use the subset provided by Trivedi et al. (2017) corresponding to facts from 2015/4/1 to 2016/3/31. Finally, we split all datasets into train, validation and test set with the same partitioning by Goel et al. (2020). And we report the link prediction performance on two evaluation metrics under the time-wise filtered setting (Goel et al., 2020): MRR and Hits@k (1, 3, 10). More details about metrics and implementation are summarized in Appendix A and B, respectively. + +
MethodICEWS14ICEWS05-15GDELT
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
TransE (2013).280.094-.637.294.090-.663----
DisMult (2015).441.325.498.668.457.338.515.691.210.133.224.365
ComplEx (2016).442.440.430.664.464.347.524.696.213.133.225.366
Simple (2018).458.341.516.687.478.359.539.708.206.124.220.366
TTransE (2016).255.074-.601.271.084-.616.115.000.160.318
TeRo (2020).562.468.621.732.586.469.668.795.245.154.264.420
ChronoR (2021).625.547.669.773.675.596.723.820----
RotateQVS (2022).591.507.642.754.633.529.709.813.270.175.293.458
BoxTE (2022).613.528.664.763.667.582.719.820.352.269.377.511
TA-DisMult (2018).477.363-.686.474.346-.728.206.124.219.365
DE-SimplE (2020).526.418.592.725.513.392.578.748.230.141.248.403
TNTComplEx (2020).620.520.660.760.670.590.710.810.223.142.237.379
TeLM (2021).625.545.673.774.678.599.728.823----
Time-LowFER (2022).623.549.671.757.638.555.690.791----
TeMP (2020).601.478.681.828.691.566.782.917.275.191.297.437
T-GAP (2021).610.509.677.790.670.568.743.845----
SPA (concurrent work).658.544.737.857.713.580.820.933.360.282.384.510
SToKE.659.574.693.803.712.605.790.885.371.290.399.525
+ +Table 2: Performance comparison on three benchmark datasets. The best and second best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively. Results are taken from the responding literature, and "-" means not reported. + +# 5.2 Baselines + +We compare our model with representative static KG embeddings: TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) and ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), existing advanced TKGE approaches, including distance-based extensions: TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), TeRo (Xu et al., 2020b), ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021), RotateQVS (Chen et al., 2022) and BoxTE (Messner et al., 2022), extensions of semantic matching methods: TA-DisMult (García-Durán et al., 2018), DE-SimpleE (Goel et al., 2020), TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and Time-LowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022), and GNN-based methods: TeMP (Wu et al., 2020), T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) and concurrent work SPA (Wang et al., 2022c). Among the above baselines, GNN-based methods focus on query-relevant contextual information. + +# 5.3 Main Results + +Table 2 reports the link prediction results of all methods on three benchmark datasets. We can observe that SToKE consistently outperforms the baselines on all datasets. Especially on the GDELT dataset, our model achieves improvements of $5.4\%$ in MRR and $7.8\%$ in Hits@1 over the best baseline. The possible reason is that the GDELT dataset is substantially denser (the training set contains about 2.7 million facts for 500 entities, 20 relations), and thus involves richer structural and temporal contextual information. + +In general, most temporal models perform much better than the static KGE methods since they consider temporal information in distinct ways. Specifically, the temporal extensions of static methods outperform the original counterpart for TKGC task, e.g., TeRo and TransE, DE-SimplE and SimplE, suggesting that it is feasible to incorporate temporal information into the embeddings or scoring functions. Among temporal extensions of semantic matching methods, TeLM achieves the best performance on ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15 due to its more expressive multi-vector embedding for modeling entities, relations and timestamps of TKGE. For distance-based TKGE approaches, ChronoR and BoxTE outperform other methods because they incorporate temporal information into translation model variants, i.e., rotational or spatiotranslational score functions. Overall, both types of TKGE methods achieve good results on this task. + +GNN-based methods perform strongly on three datasets, especially achieving the best results other than our model on Hits@3 and Hits@10 metrics, most notably because they additionally consider query-relevant contextual information to infer the missing facts. However, query-relevant facts may introduce knowledge noise effects, causing GNN approaches to be slightly worse than some TKGE models on the Hits@1 metric. There is no doubt that our model achieves better results because we consider both structural and temporal facts on inference. We construct the input text by filtering out some relevant facts through heuristic strategies, + +
Query: (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29) Answer: B
Layer2014-1-272014-1-29
12ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
-----.691.138.171--
11ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.256----.097.065.083.021.034
10ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.068.066.282.057.199.030----
+ +Table 3: A partial input text related to the query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), where $A$ , $B$ and $C$ represent South_Korea, North_Korea and Japan, respectively. We only list the attention scores with bolded token as the query value in each layer. + +
ModelsICEWS14
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SToKE.659.574.693.803
- SC.647.556.688.792
- TC.543.428.593.755
+AFF.641.550.678.796
- TE.641.557.675.791
- SM.634.547.669.778
+ BERT-large.662.576.700.809
+ +Table 4: Performance of different variants on ICEWS14. + +which reduces the noise effect to some extent and allows our model to achieve the best results on the Hits@1 metric. Meanwhile, heuristic strategies may also ignore some inactive entities as query answers (Wu et al., 2020), which makes our model slightly less effective than TeMP on Hits@10. Furthermore, the performance of our model still shows strong competitiveness compared to the concurrent work. SPA designs specific GNN architectures for different datasets, while we use a unified BERT architecture to explore TKG's topological and temporal properties simultaneously. + +# 5.4 Ablation Study + +As shown in Table 4, we conduct ablation experiments on ICEWS14, and discuss the effects of different variants as follows: + +EET Variants. The third block shows the results corresponding to the different construction methods of EET in the first step. - SC (Structural Contexts) indicates that we construct the EET only considering temporal adjacency facts associated with the query, ignoring the interactions between facts within the same timestamp, i.e., making the hyperparameter $n$ to 1. Similarly, - TC (Temporal Contexts) means we only incorporate concurrent facts with the query into the EET, making $m$ to 0. The results demonstrate that both structural and + +temporal contexts in the query-specific subgraph contribute to the prediction, which exactly validates our motivation. $+AFF$ indicates that we replace the RFF strategy with the AFF strategy mentioned in Section 4.1, which implies that the RFF heuristic has the advantage of exploring neighboring entities related to the query. + +Model Variants. We use an absolute position embedding and a fully connected matrix instead of the temporal embedding (TE) and the structural matrix (SM), and denote them by - TE and - SM, respectively. It can be seen that the performance of two model variants decreases a lot, proving the validity of two model components. Besides, we use a larger pre-trained BERT-large model to replace the original BERT-base. The more parameters fully explore the query-related contexts, resulting in a performance improvement, which indicates that our model can fine-tune other pre-trained BERT models for the link prediction task. + +# 5.5 Case Study + +In order to show how SToKE learns contextual information related to the query, we provide an example in Table 3 from the test set of ICEWS14. When facing query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), the model tries to find the answer from its relevant contextual facts. Due to the limitations of the structural matrix, the [MASK] token puts more attention on the $A$ token at the 12th layer. Through attention scores at the 11th layer, it can be observed that $A$ does not assign a higher score to $C$ at the same timestamp but focuses on its adjacent timestamped $A$ token. Moreover, the $A$ token at 2014-1-27 aggregates the hidden information of $B$ and passes it to the [MASK] token through the $A$ at 2014-1-29, which illustrates the reason why $A$ as a "Trunk" can "bridge" different contexts mentioned in Section 4.1. We argue that the model assigns + +scores in this way because the concurrent fact $(A, \text{Host\_a\_vist}, C)$ holds an opposite meaning to the query, while the relation Engage_in_negotiation of temporal adjacent fact is typically accompanied by Criticize_or_denounce. The example also verifies that our model can explore both structural and temporal contexts related to the query. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose a novel model for the temporal knowledge graph completion task named SToKE, which learns contextualized knowledge representations in terms of joint structural and temporal dimensions. Unlike other GNN-based methods, our model uses a unified BERT architecture to simultaneously explore contextual information of the TKG substructure, i.e., query-relevant structural and temporal neighboring facts. To enable BERT to handle the TKG, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query, and introduce temporal embedding and structural matrix to ensure the temporal order and structural dependencies among facts in EET. Through masking the missing entity of query to fine-tune the pre-trained BERT, our model outperforms other methods on three widely used datasets. + +# Limitations + +Our model simultaneously encodes structural and temporal contexts of the TKG substructure, and uses heuristic strategies to select a portion of query-relevant facts as input texts for PLMs. We can achieve stunning results with these selected facts. However, this work only considers the query-relevant one-hop neighbor facts to achieve a good performance improvement, but ignores the benefits of multi-hop neighbor facts. We leave it for future work to verify the effectiveness of multi-hop paths. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 62025208 and 61932001. + +# References + +Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS, pages 2787-2795. + +Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icews coded event data. Harvard Data-verse, 12. +Kai Chen, Ye Wang, Yitong Li, and Aiping Li. 2022. Rotateqs: Representing temporal information as rotations in quaternion vector space for temporal knowledge graph completion. In ACL, pages 5843-5857. +Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulçehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In EMNLP, pages 1724-1734. +Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In EMNLP, pages 2001-2011. +Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In AAAI, pages 1811-1818. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186. +Ioannis Dikeoulias, Saadullah Amin, and Günter Neumann. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with low-rank and model-agnostic representations. In RepL4NLP@ACL, pages 111-120. +Yifu Gao, Linhui Feng, Zhigang Kan, Yi Han, Linbo Qiao, and Dongsheng Li. 2022. Modeling precursors for temporal knowledge graph reasoning via autoencoder structure. In IJCAI, pages 2044-2051. +Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 4816-4821. +Rishab Goel, Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Marcus A. Brubaker, and Pascal Poupart. 2020. Diachronic embedding for temporal knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 3988-3995. +Zhen Han, Ruotong Liao, Beiyan Liu, Yao Zhang, Zifeng Ding, Heinz Köpl, Hinrich Schütze, and Volker Tresp. 2022. Enhanced temporal knowledge embeddings with contextualized language representations. CoRR, abs/2203.09590. +Bin He, Di Zhou, Jinghui Xiao, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, Nicholas Jing Yuan, and Tong Xu. 2020. BERT-MK: Integrating graph contextualized knowledge into pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 2281-2290. +Shaoxiong Ji, Shirui Pan, Erik Cambria, Pekka Marttinen, and Philip S. Yu. 2022. A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications. + +IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33(2):494-514. +Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In COLING, pages 1715-1724. +Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In EMNLP, pages 6669-6683. +Jaehun Jung, Jinhong Jung, and U Kang. 2021. Learning to walk across time for interpretable temporal knowledge graph completion. In KDD, pages 786-795. +Seyed Mehran Kazemi and David Poole. 2018. Simple embedding for link prediction in knowledge graphs. In NeurIPS, pages 4289-4300. +Timothee Lacroix, Guillaume Obozinski, and Nicolas Usunier. 2020. Tensor decompositions for temporal knowledge base completion. In *ICLR*. +Kalev Leetaru and Philip A Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone. In ISA Annual Convention. +Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In SIGIR. +Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 2181-2187. +Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Qi Ju, Haotang Deng, and Ping Wang. 2020. K-BERT: enabling language representation with knowledge graph. In AAAI, pages 2901-2908. +Johannes Messner, Ralph Abboud, and Ismail Ilkan Ceylan. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph completion using box embeddings. In AAAI, pages 7779-7787. +Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In ACL, pages 4710-4723. +Dai Quoc Nguyen, Tu Dinh Nguyen, Dat Quoc Nguyen, and Dinh Q. Phung. 2018. A novel embedding model for knowledge base completion based on convolutional neural network. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 327-333. +Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert L. Logan IV, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 43-54. + +Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Anthony Colas, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2021. Chronor: Rotation based temporal knowledge graph embedding. In AAAI, pages 6471-6479. +Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In ESWC. +Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Xipeng Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Yaru Hu, Xuanjing Huang, and Zheng Zhang. 2020. Colake: Contextualized language and knowledge embedding. In COLING, pages 3660-3670. +Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In ICLR. +Rakshit Trivedi, Hanjun Dai, Yichen Wang, and Le Song. 2017. Know-evolve: Deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs. In ICML, pages 3462-3471. +Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In ICML, pages 2071-2080. +Bo Wang, Tao Shen, Guodong Long, Tianyi Zhou, Ying Wang, and Yi Chang. 2021a. Structure-augmented text representation learning for efficient knowledge graph completion. In WWW, pages 1737-1748. +Liang Wang, Wei Zhao, Zhuoyu Wei, and Jingming Liu. 2022a. Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In ACL, pages 4281-4294. +Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021b. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194. +Xintao Wang, Qianyu He, Jiaqing Liang, and Yanghua Xiao. 2022b. Language models as knowledge embeddings. In *IJCAI*, pages 2291-2297. +Zhen Wang, Haotong Du, Quanming Yao, and Xuelong Li. 2022c. Search to pass messages for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 6189-6201. +Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI, pages 1112-1119. +Jiapeng Wu, Meng Cao, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Temp: Temporal message passing for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 5730-5746. + +Chengjin Xu, Yung-Yu Chen, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Jens Lehmann. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph completion using a linear temporal regularizer and multivector embeddings. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 2569-2578. +Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Jens Lehmann, and Hamed Shariat Yazdi. 2020a. Temporal knowledge graph embedding model based on additive time series decomposition. In ISWC, pages 654-671. +Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Hamed Shariat Yazdi, and Jens Lehmann. 2020b. Tero: A time-aware knowledge graph embedding via temporal rotation. In COLING, pages 1583-1593. +Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In ICLR. +Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. KG-BERT: BERT for knowledge graph completion. CoRR, abs/1909.03193. +Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Zhiyi Deng, and Jie Shao. 2021. Spatial-temporal attention network for temporal knowledge graph completion. In DASFAA, pages 207-223. +Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Yongpan Sheng, and Jie Shao. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph representation learning with local and global evolutions. Knowledge-Based Systems, 251:109234. +Jiawei Zhang, Haopeng Zhang, Congying Xia, and Li Sun. 2020a. Graph-bert: Only attention is needed for learning graph representations. CoRR, abs/2001.05140. +Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, Hengshu Zhu, Zhi-Ping Shi, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020b. Relational graph neural network with hierarchical attention for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 9612-9619. +Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: enhanced language representation with informative entities. In ACL, pages 1441-1451. +Zhiyuan Zhang, Xiaoqian Liu, Yi Zhang, Qi Su, Xu Sun, and Bin He. 2020c. Pretrain-kge: Learning knowledge representation from pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 259-266. +Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhan. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In AAAI. + +# A Metrics + +We use Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) and the proportion of correct quadruples ranked in top 1, 3 and 10 (Hits@1, Hits@3, and Hits@10) to evaluate the model performance. There are two filtered setting, static filtered (Bordes et al., 2013) and time-wise filtered (Goel et al., 2020). The static filtered setting is not suitable for TKGs. For example, given a test query $(s,r,\?,t)$ with the answer $o$ , assume that there are two other quadruples $(s,r,o',t')$ and $(s,r,o'',t)$ , where $t' < t$ . The static filtered setting ignores time information and removes both $o'$ and $o''$ from the candidates. However, the fact $(s,r,o')$ is temporally valid on $t'$ , instead of timesamp $t$ . In this way, the filtered setting wrongly removes quite a few quadruples and thus leads to higher ranking scores. A more appropriate timewise filtered setting is only to remove $o''$ from the candidates. Specifically, for each test quadruple $(s,r,o,t)$ , we create two queries: $(s,r,\?,t)$ and $(?,r,o,t)$ . For the first query, the model ranks all entities in $o \cup C$ with their scores from Eq.(4), where $C = \{o':o' \in \mathcal{E}, (s,r,o',t) \notin \mathcal{G}\}$ . We follow a similar approach for the second query. + +# B Detailed Experimental Settings + +We choose pre-trained BERT-base model (Devlin et al., 2019) with $L = 12$ layers, $K = 12$ self-attention heads and $d = 768$ hidden dimension of embeddings as the initialization. We select the optimal hyperparameters by grid searching according to MRR on the validation set, and set the following hyperparameters in fine-tuning with Adam: batch size: 128, learning rate: 2e-5 and dropout rate: 0.1. We use the RFF strategy to construct the event evelution tree. In EET, the length of time window $m$ and the number of concurrent facts $n$ are set to 10 and 2 for ICEWS14, 14 and 2 for ICEWS05-15, 5 and 2 for GDELT dataset. The length of input text $l$ is set to 107, 147 and 57 for ICEWS and GDELT respectively, where $l = (m * 2 + 1) * (n * 2 + 1) + 2$ . + +Specifically, our SToKE consists of a embedding layer, a mask transformer encoder and a MLP. The parameters of embedding layer consists of token embedding $(|\mathcal{E}| + 4,d)$ , segment embedding $(2,d)$ , temporal position and displacement embedding $(l + |\mathcal{T}|,d)$ and three matrices $W_{\Delta t}3d^2$ . The mask transformer encoder contains 12 mask self attention layers, where the parameters of each layer consist of three matrices $W_{q},W_{k},W_{v}$ , a concatenated linear layer, where the parameter quantity of + +
GPU ResourceNVIDIA RTX A6000
HyperparameterSearch BoundBest Setup
length of time window mchoice{5, 10, 12, 14}10(ICEWS14), 14(ICEWS05-15), 5(GDELT)
number of concurrent facts nchoice{1, 2, 4}2
length of input text lchoice{57, 107, 147}107(ICEWS14), 147(ICEWS05-15), 57(GDELT)
number of epochschoice{30, 50}30 (ICEWS05-15, GDELT), 50 (ICEWS14)
batch sizechoice{32, 64, 128}128
learning ratechoice{2e-5, 5e-4}2e-5
droupout ratechoice{0.1, 0.2}0.1
number of model parameters-98.6M(ICEWS14), 106.6M(ICEWS05-15), 88.4M(GDELT)
gpu hours-12h(ICEWS14), 40h(ICEWS05-15), 60h(GDELT)
+ +Table 5: Additional implementation details of SToKE. + +![](images/4f93d0105be2b872f3c4df3ed8078d6c5ef04e5425467fade80a9f74c98bdc4b.jpg) +Figure 3: Parameter sensitivity on our SToKE. + +each part is $d^2$ , and the FFN is $8d^{2}$ . The number of MLP parameters is $d^{2} + d(|\mathcal{E}| + 4)$ . Ignoring Layernorm and Bias parameters, the amount of parameters is $148d^{2} + d(2|\mathcal{E}| + |\mathcal{T}| + l + 10)$ . Finally, we implement our model in PyTorch with NVIDIA RTX A6000. As shown in Table 5, we report the hyperparameter search bounds and best configurations along with thegpu resource. + +# C Sensitivity Analysis + +We report the performance changes on the ICEWS14 dataset by varying the hyper-parameters, including the length of time window $m$ and the number of concurrent facts $n$ . Figure 3(a) shows the performance with various time window lengths. It can be observed that our model performs better with the longer time window $m$ used. However, MRR is relatively stable at around 10, and considering the computation cost, we set $m$ to 10 on this dataset. As shown in Figure 3(b), the model performance rises and falls as the number of neighboring facts within the same timestamp increases. The probable reason is that too many concurrent facts bring knowledge noise, which affects the model's judgment of the missing fact. + +# A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Limitations + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +There are no potential risks in our work. We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Abstract and 1 Introduction + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +# B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +We use public datasets and do not use any related content, so it is not necessary to take this step in our work. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +5.1 Dataset and Metrics + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +5.1 Dataset and Metrics + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +# C Did you run computational experiments? + +4.3 Main Results, 4.4 Ablation Study and 4.5 Case Study + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix B +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4.3 Main Results +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix B + +# D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/images.zip b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e8072ec1b99764a6aed5a606756f056f0db4efd --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:61ead1ec8cecc9c4fbed1d62d55315f603fd495c1fa2db10043ce9a1559029f9 +size 538616 diff --git a/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/layout.json b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14742844f99581696b3e01ac29ad8f1372feb496 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10955 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 67, + 506, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 67, + 506, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 67, + 506, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yifu Gao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yongquan He" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Zhigang Kan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yi Han" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Linbo Qiao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Dongsheng Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 105, + 506, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 121, + 457, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 121, + 457, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 121, + 457, + 147 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 121, + 457, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " National Key Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Computing, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 148, + 361, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 148, + 361, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 148, + 361, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Meituan, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 162, + 512, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 162, + 512, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 162, + 512, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 College of Meteorology and Oceanography, National University of Defense Technology {gaoyifu, kanzhigang13, hanyi12, qiao.linbo, dsli}@nudt.edu.cn heyongquan@meituan.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 232, + 274, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 232, + 274, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 232, + 274, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Temporal knowledge graph completion that predicts missing links for incomplete temporal knowledge graphs (TKG) is gaining increasing attention. Most existing works have achieved good results by incorporating time information into static knowledge graph embedding methods. However, they ignore the contextual nature of the TKG structure, i.e., query-specific subgraph contains both structural and temporal neighboring facts. This paper presents the SToKE, a novel method that employs the pre-trained language model (PLM) to learn joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings. Specifically, we first construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query to enable PLMs to handle the TKG, which can be seen as a structured event sequence recording query-relevant structural and temporal contexts. We then propose a novel temporal embedding and structural matrix to learn the time information and structural dependencies of facts in EET. Finally, we formulate TKG completion as a mask prediction problem by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained language models. Experimental results on three widely used datasets show the superiority of our model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 154, + 573 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 154, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 154, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge graphs have facilitated many real-world applications, including question answering, dialogue systems and speech recognition (Ji et al., 2022). The rapidly growing facts on the knowledge graph often show dynamic relations or interactions of entities along the timeline, which creates the need for introducing the concept of temporal knowledge graph (TKG). Such TKGs often suffer from incompleteness due to their own dynamic features. Therefore, the temporal knowledge graph completion (TKGC) task that predicts missing links across these TKGs is gaining increasing attention from researchers (Boschee et al., 2015)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 522, + 355 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 522, + 355 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 522, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 522, + 355 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "373659d4c11eb3b3e88fcde701d9a1cf558a4b0aae9f688194fe4e6e748259df.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 526, + 423 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Part (a) shows an example of a query-specific subgraph, which consists of the facts where the query's subject China participates at the same or different timestamps. Part (b) shows the event evolutionary tree converted from the subgraph in Part (a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 526, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent works on the TKGC task have primarily focused on static knowledge graph embedding (KGE) methods. They extend KGE models by encoding time information into conventional score functions in different ways (Jiang et al., 2016; García-Durán et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020b; Lacroix et al., 2020; Messner et al., 2022), called temporal knowledge graph embedding (TKGE). Although TKGE methods outperform static KGE on this task, they mostly fail to consider the rich contextual information related to the query in the TKG structure." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As a subgraph of TKG shown in Figure 1(a), when facing the query (China, Sign formal agreements,?, 2014-12-30), its relevant contexts include both concurrent facts within the same timestamp (solid red) and temporal adjacency facts at different timestamps (dashed blue). The structural contexts (China, Intend to cooperate, Japan, 2014-12-30) and (China, Engage in diplomatic cooperation, Iran, 2014-12-30) suggests that China may sign formal agreements with either Japan or Iran. Moreover, the temporal contexts illustrate that China has been expressing intent to cooperate with Japan for some time, making Japan a more reasonable" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 173, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding Author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 288, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 288, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 288, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "417" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 795, + 452, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 795, + 452, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 795, + 452, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 417-430 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "answer to the query. Hence, learning knowledge embeddings that could effectively capture query-relevant structural and temporal contextual information facilitates the inference of missing facts. However, existing methods either only encode temporal adjacent facts residing in the query's local neighborhood (Jung et al., 2021), or only focus on concurrent events within the same timestamp and integrate entity representations of different timestamps with additional recurrence or attention mechanisms (Wu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). They fail to encode two query-relevant contexts simultaneously only using graph neural network variants, which requires us to solve the above problem by introducing a new architecture. Recent advances in pre-trained language models (PLMs) are able to learn word representations and graph representations through distinct structured contexts (Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a). Intuitively, PLMs can capture contextual meanings of entity and relation representations along joint structural and temporal dimensions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inspired by this, we propose the SToKE, a novel BERT-based model to learn knowledge embeddings with joint structural and temporal contexts. Another challenging problem is to draw connections of query-specific substructure to natural language sentences. To handle this issue, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query as shown in Figure 1(b). The EET represents the temporal evolution in the order from \"Root\" to \"Crown\", where each layer corresponds to different timestamps. Facts occurring at the same timestamp constitute the \"Branches\" of this layer, and query's subject entity China acts as a \"Trunk\" connecting different structural and temporal adjacent facts. EET is essentially a structured event sequence that helps PLMs better understand contextual information in the query-specific subgraph. Besides, we add a novel temporal embedding in the initial embeddings to ensure the sequential order of facts appearing in the EET. Considering the knowledge noise problem caused by introducing query-relevant contexts with different dimensions, we present a structural matrix to restrict the structure dependencies between facts. Overall, this paper makes the following contributions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) We propose SToKE, a novel model for the TKGC task that learns knowledge embeddings in terms of joint structural and temporal contexts via the pre-trained language model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 248 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) To enable BERT-like PLMs to handle the query-specific subgraph, we propose an event evolution tree that transforms structural and temporal contexts into a structured event sequence. The temporal order and structural dependencies of facts in the EET are limited by adopting the temporal embedding and structural matrix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 525, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3) We formulate the TKGC task as a mask prediction task by masking the missing entity of the query to fine-tune pre-trained BERT models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4) Our SToKE outperforms the state-of-the-art methods over three widely used datasets, which demonstrates our model's superiority." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 259, + 395, + 271 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 259, + 395, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 259, + 395, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 280, + 473, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 280, + 473, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 280, + 473, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Knowledge Graph Embedding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 299, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 299, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 299, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KGE aims to map the entities and relations into continuous vector space and score the plausibility of a triple, which can be roughly divided into distance-based models, semantic matching models and neural network models. Distance-based models measure the plausibility of a triple as the distance between the relation-translated subject and object entity embeddings, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) and its various extensions (Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015). Especially, RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) treats each relation as a rotation from the subject to the object. Semantic matching models measure the plausibility of a fact by mining the underlying semantics between entity and relation embeddings, e.g., DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016) and SimpleE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018). They employ a bilinear score function that represents relations as linear transformations acting on entity embeddings. Besides, some models incorporate neural networks to encode the semantics of knowledge graphs. ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and ConvKB (Nguyen et al., 2018) apply convolutional layers to model interactions between entities in the scoring function. Several methods (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018; Nathani et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020b) adopt variants of graph neural network to contextualize entity embedding with the corresponding neighborhood structure. However, above methods are not applicable to TKGs due to their ignorance of time information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 728, + 521, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 728, + 521, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 728, + 521, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, some attempts have extended the static KG embedding methods by incorporating time" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "418" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "information to improve the performance. Some TKGE models are extended from distance-based models (Jiang et al., 2016; Dasgupta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020a,b; Chen et al., 2022; Messner et al., 2022). They encode time information into a translation-based score function in different ways. ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021) builds on RotatE, representing time-relation pairs with rotation and scaling in the embedding space. Some models are temporal extensions of semantic matching methods. TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018) adopts recurrent neural networks (Cho et al., 2014) to learn time-aware representations of relations. DE-SimplE (Goel et al., 2020) utilizes diachronic entity embeddings to represent entities at different time steps. Furthermore, TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and TimeLowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022) perform a tensor decomposition involving the timestamp embedding with distinct embedding representations and product operators. While successfully extending to TKGs, these models ignore the rich contextual information in the graph structure." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 385, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 385, + 291, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 385, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another line of models focuses on the TKG structure information based on variants of graph neural networks (GNN). TeMP (Wu et al., 2020) and ST-ConvKB (Zhang et al., 2021) regard TKG as a sequence of KGs corresponding to different timestamps and use GNN variants and sequential models to generate dynamic entity representations. T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) attentively aggregates query-relevant information from each entity's local temporal adjacent facts with its temporal GNN. Moreover, SPA (Wang et al., 2022c) utilizes neural architecture search to design data-specific GNN architectures for different datasets. Other similar works (Jin et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2022) are designed for the extrapolation problem rather than TKGC, and EvoExplore (Zhang et al., 2022) focuses on local and global structure evolutions using the temporal point process. However, above methods cannot encode structural and temporal contexts simultaneously using only GNN variants. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to handle two query-relevant contexts simultaneously with PLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 282, + 724 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 282, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 282, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Language Model and Knowledge Graph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint pre-trained language models (PLMs) and knowledge graph approaches can be broadly classified into two categories: one that introduces knowl" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "edge from KGs to enhance PLMs on NLP downstream tasks (Zhang et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2019; He et al., 2020). However, they freeze the knowledge embedding during training PLMs, which are not real models for learning knowledge representations. To solve the above problem, K-BERT (Liu et al., 2020) and CoLAKE (Sun et al., 2020) combine entities and relations in the form of tokens with text, which are jointly fed into the PLMs. The other is to learn the knowledge embeddings from natural language texts through PLMs, called text-based methods, which are orthogonal to our work. Recent methods learn to generate entity embeddings with PLMs from entity text descriptions (Zhang et al., 2020c; Yao et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021a). Specially, KEPLER (Wang et al., 2021b) encodes textual entity descriptions with jointly optimizing KE and language modeling objectives. LMKE (Wang et al., 2022b) and SimKGC (Wang et al., 2022a) introduce efficient contrastive learning to improve the performance of text-based methods. But none of these models consider the temporal aspect of knowledge graphs. ECOLA (Han et al., 2022) uses PLMs to enhance temporal knowledge graph embeddings with temporally relevant texts. Nevertheless, not all facts have summary texts in the practical application. Besides, above approaches focus on the combination of structured knowledge and unstructured text, which is fundamentally different from our method focusing on the contextual information of the TKG subgraph." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 502, + 477, + 514 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 502, + 477, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 502, + 477, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Notations and Task Definition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A temporal knowledge graph (TKG) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be viewed as a multi-relational, directed graph with timestamped edges between nodes (entities). Each event (fact) in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G} = \\{G_0,G_1,\\dots ,G_T\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be represented as a quadruple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s_t,r_t,o_t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", corresponding to subject entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s\\in \\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", relation type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r\\in \\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", object entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o\\in \\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and timestamp " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t\\in \\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E},\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represent the sets of entities, relationships and timestamps, respectively. The purpose of the temporal knowledge graph completion task is to infer the missing object entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,?,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", or missing subject entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(?,r,o,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t\\in \\{0,\\ldots ,T\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 711, + 365, + 723 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 711, + 365, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 711, + 365, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two stages. The first step is to construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each query. EET can be viewed" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "419" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "as a structured event sequence incorporating structural and temporal contextual information related to the predicted fact. Second, we present our SToKE model, which learns joint structural and temporal contextualized knowledge representations based on the constructed EET." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 161, + 259, + 173 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 161, + 259, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 161, + 259, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Event Evolution Tree Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The event evolution tree is used to transform structural and temporal contexts related to the query into a structured knowledge sequence. Specifically, for the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,\\ref{eq:2},t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we construct an EET " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C = \\{c_{t - m},\\dots ,c_{t - 1},c_t,c_{t + 1},\\dots ,c_{t + m}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i} = \\{s\\{(r_{i1},o_{i1}),\\dots ,(r_{in},o_{in})\\} \\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the fact set at timestamp " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that the subject entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " participates in. We constrain the time interval between the timestamp of the query and each fact to be no more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that in the TKGC setting, we assume there is missing data at some time point " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " but the other snapshot information is available during training (Wu et al., 2020). Hence, we integrate more temporal information from both past and future timestamps. Each fact set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains at most " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " facts occurring at timestamp " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which are composed of the subject entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the query, the 1-hop neighbor entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " linking two entities. Each fact can be viewed as a \"Branch\" of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "th layer, and subject entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of distinct layers constitute the \"Trunk\". We design two strategies to select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " facts in each set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 290, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 290, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 290, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) Active Facts First(AFF) (Wu et al., 2020): Prefer facts that appear more often in time window " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 290, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 290, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " among neighbor facts;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 291, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) Repetitive Facts First(RFF) (Zhu et al., 2021): Prefer facts that have the same relation as query among neighbor facts, and the AFF strategy is followed if the number of facts does not reach " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2(a), the EET is constructed from the query-specific subgraph in Figure 1(a) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(m = 1, n = 2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The query's subject entity China is shared by each event in this EET structure, connecting distinct events in both structural and temporal dimensions. Section 4.2.2 shows the reason for China's ability to bridge different dimensional facts from a fine-grained perspective. Similarly, for the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(?, r, o, t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the fact set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{o\\{(\\dot{r}_{i1}, s_{i1}), \\dots, (\\dot{r}_{in}, s_{in})\\}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dot{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the inverse relation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 230, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 230, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 230, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 The Proposed SToKE Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, the overall framework of SToKE has three main components. The first part is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "an embedding layer to learn initial knowledge representations with three distinct embeddings. The second part is a mask transformer encoder to model the interactions among facts in different dimensional contexts and learn contextualized knowledge representations. The third part is a prediction layer to infer the missing entity based on the hidden representation of the [MASK] token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 525, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.1 Learning Initial Knowledge Embeddings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The critical challenge is how to preserve the temporal information of the EET in the knowledge representations. We add a novel temporal embedding to focus on the relative position and absolute displacement of facts in the temporal dimension." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Token Embedding Similar to BERT, we use two special tokens, i.e., [CLS] and [SEP], as the beginning and end of the text, respectively. We employ the [MASK] token to mask the missing entity of the given query and align the different lengths of text with [PAD] token. As shown in Figure 2(a), we treat each fact component in the EET as individual tokens and unroll the tree structure in absolute position order to obtain a new input text, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = \\{e_0, e_1, \\ldots, e_{l-1}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents entity, relation or special tokens, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the max sequence length. However, some tokens consisting of multiple words, such as Intend_to_cooperate, will lose original semantics as part of the event while being tokenized with the BERT vocabulary. Hence, we create two new lookup tables for entities and relations, denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{ent}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{rel}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We add four special tokens and consider the inverse relation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(?, r, o, t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", so the entity lookup table " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{ent} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(|\\mathcal{E}|+4) \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the relation lookup table " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{rel} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{2|\\mathcal{R}| \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hidden size, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{E}|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{R}|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the total number of elements in the entity set and relation set, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Temporal Embedding To exploit the order information of tokens in the sequence, BERT adds an absolute position embedding. However, only considering the absolute position index will disrupt the temporal order of the facts occurring in the EET. Taking the input text in Figure 2(b) as an example, although Intend_to_cooperate and Japan are inserted after Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and (China, Sign_formal_agreements, [MASK]) are both events occurring at the same time and should have consistent temporal location information. To solve above issue, we present a temporal position embedding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "420" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 516, + 307 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 516, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 516, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 516, + 307 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3fc079b0a81ae83f8574514a660a13f6df122ab65db9d37620cb2472428a3029.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 313, + 528, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 313, + 528, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 313, + 528, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The framework of our proposed SToKE model. Suppose (a) is our constructed EET from the subgraph in Figure 1. Our SToKE consists of three components: Part (b) is to convert the EET into an embedding representation with the temporal position and displacement information. Part (c) is to learn contextualized knowledge representations with the structural matrix. And part (d) is to predict the missing entity with the [MASK] token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 383, + 290, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 383, + 290, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 383, + 290, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to replace the origin absolute position embedding of BERT. Specifically, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan have the same temporal position indexes 5 and 6 as Sign_formal_agreements and [MASK], rather than absolute position indexes 7 and 8. From the view of temporal order, the above two events are equivalent to occurring at the same timestamp." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 291, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, the temporal position embedding considers the relative temporal position of tokens in the text, ignoring the absolute temporal gap between timestamps of the query and each event. Concretely, we add a temporal displacement embedding as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 571, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 571, + 290, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 571, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {E} _ {j} = \\boldsymbol {W} _ {\\Delta t} (\\boldsymbol {e} _ {j} + \\boldsymbol {\\tau} _ {| \\Delta t _ {j} |}), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "7eb9656c8e1a3ebd110cca5692782814334472d7877255f1046bb40fbcabfa0d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 600, + 260, + 644 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 600, + 260, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 600, + 260, + 644 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{r} \\pmb {W} _ {\\Delta t} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\pmb {W} _ {p a s t} & \\Delta t _ {j} < 0 \\\\ \\pmb {W} _ {n o w} & \\Delta t _ {j} = 0 \\\\ \\pmb {W} _ {f u t u r e} & \\Delta t _ {j} > 0 \\end{array} \\right., \\end{array}", + "image_path": "b46ba310e34a31ec7b953d832c0bfd07a2ee3c57df39f87dcc1205f9b049434b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta t_{j} = t_{j} - t_{query}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_j\\in \\mathbb{R}^d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the temporal position embedding, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the temporal position index. We learn the discrete embedding of temporal displacement " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{|\\Delta t_j|}\\in \\mathbb{R}^d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and consider the sign of the displacement by applying different weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{W}_{\\Delta t}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then, we follow the segment embeddings of BERT, and treat each input text as one sentence with the same segment tag. At last, we sum the above three embeddings to get the final" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 525, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 525, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 525, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 525, + 409 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 525, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and feed it to the mask transformer encoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.2 Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to learn contextualized embeddings of the missing entity, we propose the mask transformer encoder, which differs from the BERT block by introducing the structural matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to restrict the self-attention area. Specifically, the matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " controls the dependencies among structural and temporal contextual facts, making our model feasible and efficient. As shown in the left part of Figure 2(c), the row and column of the matrix are absolute position indexes, where blue dots mean visible and white dots mean invisible. Specifically, three tokens China, Intend_to_cooperate and Japan interact with each other because they are components of the same fact. Therefore the points in the matrix where their corresponding indexes (1, 2 and 3) cross are blue. In contrast, Japan should not be affected by Express_accord since they are the object and relation of two facts, respectively. The points where their corresponding indexes (3 and 10) intersect are white. Hence, the structural matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 447, + 527, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as shown below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 746, + 525, + 776 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 746, + 525, + 776 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 746, + 525, + 776 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {M} [ a, b ] = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} 0, & \\text {i f} e _ {a} \\ominus e _ {b} \\\\ - \\infty , & \\text {o t h e r s .} \\end{array} \\right., \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "39303d1a98b05c990f3698a3a6d2dc63bcae3429d9fa27b29bfae4b03dd55f32.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "421" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_a \\ominus e_b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are in the same \"Branch\" or \"Trunk\" mentioned in Section 4.1, which means " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are visible to each other, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the absolute position indexes. In particular, the [CLS] and [SEP] tokens are also treated as a part of \"Trunk\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moreover, the mask transformer encoder is stacked by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " mask self-attention layers, which maps the input embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to contextual representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{H}^{(L)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{H}^{(L)} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". At each layer, we also use three independent linear transformation matrices, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{W}_q^i, \\pmb{W}_k^i, \\pmb{W}_v^i \\in \\mathbb{R}^{d \\times d'}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", to transform the input embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into queries, keys, and values of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th scaled dot-product attention head, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d' = \\frac{d}{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i = 1, 2, \\ldots, K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The specific function is shown below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 301, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 301, + 290, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 301, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {H} ^ {i} = f \\left(\\frac {\\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {q} ^ {i}\\right) \\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {k} ^ {i}\\right) ^ {T}}{\\sqrt {d ^ {\\prime}}} + \\boldsymbol {M}\\right) \\left(\\boldsymbol {X} \\boldsymbol {W} _ {v} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "aafd0fd9255a8a9fd43ab179586d6ce6387df69668692f6dae817e1f73bf1600.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H^{i} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d'}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the output representation of corresponding attention head, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the softmax function, and we cascade them to get the output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". When " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M[a, b] = -\\infty" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the softmax function makes the attention weight to zero, preventing token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from computing the attention score of token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{b}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As the example illustrated in Figure 2(c), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is affected by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and obtain the information of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{\\mathrm{Japan}}^{(j)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indirectly through " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Meanwhile, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{\\mathrm{Botswana}}^{(j - 1)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can pass information to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(j + 1)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " through " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{\\mathrm{China}}^{(j + 1)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Similarly, Intend_to_cooperate and Express Accord tokens also have an effect on [MASK]. Thus, the [MASK] token incorporates the information of structural neighboring fact (China, Intend_to_cooperate, Japan) and temporal adjacency fact (China, Express Accord, Botswana). The China token acts as a \"bridge\" between facts of different dimensions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 240, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 240, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 240, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.3 Predicting the Missing Entity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As described in Section 4.1, we create two training instances for each fact, one by replacing the missing object entity of query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,\\?,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a special token [MASK], and the other by replacing the subject entity of query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(?,r,o,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the [MASK] token. Then we treat the TKGC task as a mask prediction problem, and input the final contextual embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{[\\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(L)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) decoder to predict the occurrence probabili" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 115 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 115 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 115 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 115 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Datasets|E||R|NtrainNvalidNtest|T|
ICEWS147,12823072,8268,9418,963365
ICEWS05-1510,488251368,96246,27546,0924,017
GDELT500202,735,685341,961341,961366
", + "image_path": "9c61f8d5dae82d28f67e5df5a60bd9187fcf5c22368e1f7ea277986eba76cd3c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Dataset Statistics of three datasets. (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{train}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{valid}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{test}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 122, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the number of facts in training, validation and test sets.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 181, + 383, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 181, + 383, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 181, + 383, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ties of all entities:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 203, + 525, + 224 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 203, + 525, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 203, + 525, + 224 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p (\\mathbf {e}) = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(\\left(h _ {\\text {[ M A S K ]}} ^ {(L)} \\boldsymbol {w} _ {1} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {1}\\right) \\boldsymbol {w} _ {2} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {2}\\right), \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "ebdd20e364809f1d9057247bea8d68a653d2d9de59fbe23b8fc772c106961c0e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{w}_1\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{b}_1\\in \\mathbb{R}^d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the parameters of the first linear layer, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{w}_2\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d\\times (|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{b}_2\\in \\mathbb{R}^{(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the parameters of second." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 418, + 300 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 418, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 418, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Training Objective" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We regard the mask prediction problem as a multiclass classification task and use the cross-entropy function to calculate the loss during the training process:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 369, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 369, + 525, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 369, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = - \\sum_ {(s, r, o, t)} \\log p (o _ {t}) + \\log p (s _ {t}), \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "0baed06882754e2e8bcdc2615cc81924d0ed05ffb9e99192247966d7e3b95d89.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 524, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o,t)\\in \\mathcal{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the known facts in the training set, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(*)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the probability scores of corresponding entities obtained from Eq.(4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 390, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 390, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 390, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 425, + 496 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 425, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 425, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our model on three typical datasets commonly used in previous studies, namely ICEWS14, ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018) and GDELT (Trivedi et al., 2017). Dataset statistics are described in Table 1. For ICEWS (Boschee et al., 2015), a well-established event-based datasets, we use two subsets corresponding to facts from 2014/1/1 to 2014/12/31 and facts from 2005/1/1 to 2015/12/31, i.e., ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15. For GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013), we use the subset provided by Trivedi et al. (2017) corresponding to facts from 2015/4/1 to 2016/3/31. Finally, we split all datasets into train, validation and test set with the same partitioning by Goel et al. (2020). And we report the link prediction performance on two evaluation metrics under the time-wise filtered setting (Goel et al., 2020): MRR and Hits@k (1, 3, 10). More details about metrics and implementation are summarized in Appendix A and B, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "422" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 523, + 281 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 523, + 281 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 523, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 523, + 281 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodICEWS14ICEWS05-15GDELT
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
TransE (2013).280.094-.637.294.090-.663----
DisMult (2015).441.325.498.668.457.338.515.691.210.133.224.365
ComplEx (2016).442.440.430.664.464.347.524.696.213.133.225.366
Simple (2018).458.341.516.687.478.359.539.708.206.124.220.366
TTransE (2016).255.074-.601.271.084-.616.115.000.160.318
TeRo (2020).562.468.621.732.586.469.668.795.245.154.264.420
ChronoR (2021).625.547.669.773.675.596.723.820----
RotateQVS (2022).591.507.642.754.633.529.709.813.270.175.293.458
BoxTE (2022).613.528.664.763.667.582.719.820.352.269.377.511
TA-DisMult (2018).477.363-.686.474.346-.728.206.124.219.365
DE-SimplE (2020).526.418.592.725.513.392.578.748.230.141.248.403
TNTComplEx (2020).620.520.660.760.670.590.710.810.223.142.237.379
TeLM (2021).625.545.673.774.678.599.728.823----
Time-LowFER (2022).623.549.671.757.638.555.690.791----
TeMP (2020).601.478.681.828.691.566.782.917.275.191.297.437
T-GAP (2021).610.509.677.790.670.568.743.845----
SPA (concurrent work).658.544.737.857.713.580.820.933.360.282.384.510
SToKE.659.574.693.803.712.605.790.885.371.290.399.525
", + "image_path": "3f32cf9c8fd0b09da575ec0a413d851fbc378f7f5bd63c5a2f5c4044c80b5a6c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 316 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Performance comparison on three benchmark datasets. The best and second best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively. Results are taken from the responding literature, and \"-\" means not reported." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 140, + 348 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 140, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 140, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare our model with representative static KG embeddings: TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DisMult (Yang et al., 2015), SimplE (Kazemi and Poole, 2018) and ComplEx (Trouillon et al., 2016), existing advanced TKGE approaches, including distance-based extensions: TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), TeRo (Xu et al., 2020b), ChronoR (Sadeghian et al., 2021), RotateQVS (Chen et al., 2022) and BoxTE (Messner et al., 2022), extensions of semantic matching methods: TA-DisMult (García-Durán et al., 2018), DE-SimpleE (Goel et al., 2020), TNTComplEx (Lacroix et al., 2020), TeLM (Xu et al., 2021) and Time-LowFER (Dikeoulias et al., 2022), and GNN-based methods: TeMP (Wu et al., 2020), T-GAP (Jung et al., 2021) and concurrent work SPA (Wang et al., 2022c). Among the above baselines, GNN-based methods focus on query-relevant contextual information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 158, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 158, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 158, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 reports the link prediction results of all methods on three benchmark datasets. We can observe that SToKE consistently outperforms the baselines on all datasets. Especially on the GDELT dataset, our model achieves improvements of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in MRR and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Hits@1 over the best baseline. The possible reason is that the GDELT dataset is substantially denser (the training set contains about 2.7 million facts for 500 entities, 20 relations), and thus involves richer structural and temporal contextual information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In general, most temporal models perform much better than the static KGE methods since they consider temporal information in distinct ways. Specifically, the temporal extensions of static methods outperform the original counterpart for TKGC task, e.g., TeRo and TransE, DE-SimplE and SimplE, suggesting that it is feasible to incorporate temporal information into the embeddings or scoring functions. Among temporal extensions of semantic matching methods, TeLM achieves the best performance on ICEWS14 and ICEWS05-15 due to its more expressive multi-vector embedding for modeling entities, relations and timestamps of TKGE. For distance-based TKGE approaches, ChronoR and BoxTE outperform other methods because they incorporate temporal information into translation model variants, i.e., rotational or spatiotranslational score functions. Overall, both types of TKGE methods achieve good results on this task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GNN-based methods perform strongly on three datasets, especially achieving the best results other than our model on Hits@3 and Hits@10 metrics, most notably because they additionally consider query-relevant contextual information to infer the missing facts. However, query-relevant facts may introduce knowledge noise effects, causing GNN approaches to be slightly worse than some TKGE models on the Hits@1 metric. There is no doubt that our model achieves better results because we consider both structural and temporal facts on inference. We construct the input text by filtering out some relevant facts through heuristic strategies," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "423" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 520, + 166 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 520, + 166 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 520, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 520, + 166 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Query: (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29) Answer: B
Layer2014-1-272014-1-29
12ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
-----.691.138.171--
11ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.256----.097.065.083.021.034
10ACriticize_or_denounceBEngage_in_negotiationBACriticize_or_denounce[MASK]Host_a.visitC
.068.066.282.057.199.030----
", + "image_path": "9bb9536859dbdf9c16f87a99f0ea42e2dded40d978f6960c1c542c0d0a870591.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 228, + 280, + 334 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: A partial input text related to the query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represent South_Korea, North_Korea and Japan, respectively. We only list the attention scores with bolded token as the query value in each layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 228, + 280, + 334 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 228, + 280, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 228, + 280, + 334 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsICEWS14
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SToKE.659.574.693.803
- SC.647.556.688.792
- TC.543.428.593.755
+AFF.641.550.678.796
- TE.641.557.675.791
- SM.634.547.669.778
+ BERT-large.662.576.700.809
", + "image_path": "fe5b30474a4261dc3852ddf0eb1299ee2bd7fffa093728a180826d8076af069c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 289, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 289, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 289, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Performance of different variants on ICEWS14." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 291, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which reduces the noise effect to some extent and allows our model to achieve the best results on the Hits@1 metric. Meanwhile, heuristic strategies may also ignore some inactive entities as query answers (Wu et al., 2020), which makes our model slightly less effective than TeMP on Hits@10. Furthermore, the performance of our model still shows strong competitiveness compared to the concurrent work. SPA designs specific GNN architectures for different datasets, while we use a unified BERT architecture to explore TKG's topological and temporal properties simultaneously." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 167, + 566 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 167, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 167, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Table 4, we conduct ablation experiments on ICEWS14, and discuss the effects of different variants as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "EET Variants. The third block shows the results corresponding to the different construction methods of EET in the first step. - SC (Structural Contexts) indicates that we construct the EET only considering temporal adjacency facts associated with the query, ignoring the interactions between facts within the same timestamp, i.e., making the hyperparameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 1. Similarly, - TC (Temporal Contexts) means we only incorporate concurrent facts with the query into the EET, making " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 0. The results demonstrate that both structural and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "temporal contexts in the query-specific subgraph contribute to the prediction, which exactly validates our motivation. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+AFF" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates that we replace the RFF strategy with the AFF strategy mentioned in Section 4.1, which implies that the RFF heuristic has the advantage of exploring neighboring entities related to the query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model Variants. We use an absolute position embedding and a fully connected matrix instead of the temporal embedding (TE) and the structural matrix (SM), and denote them by - TE and - SM, respectively. It can be seen that the performance of two model variants decreases a lot, proving the validity of two model components. Besides, we use a larger pre-trained BERT-large model to replace the original BERT-base. The more parameters fully explore the query-related contexts, resulting in a performance improvement, which indicates that our model can fine-tune other pre-trained BERT models for the link prediction task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 383, + 537 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 383, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 383, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.5 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to show how SToKE learns contextual information related to the query, we provide an example in Table 3 from the test set of ICEWS14. When facing query (A, Criticize_or_denounce, ?, 2014-1-29), the model tries to find the answer from its relevant contextual facts. Due to the limitations of the structural matrix, the [MASK] token puts more attention on the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " token at the 12th layer. Through attention scores at the 11th layer, it can be observed that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " does not assign a higher score to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at the same timestamp but focuses on its adjacent timestamped " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " token. Moreover, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " token at 2014-1-27 aggregates the hidden information of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and passes it to the [MASK] token through the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at 2014-1-29, which illustrates the reason why " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a \"Trunk\" can \"bridge\" different contexts mentioned in Section 4.1. We argue that the model assigns" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "424" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scores in this way because the concurrent fact " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(A, \\text{Host\\_a\\_vist}, C)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " holds an opposite meaning to the query, while the relation Engage_in_negotiation of temporal adjacent fact is typically accompanied by Criticize_or_denounce. The example also verifies that our model can explore both structural and temporal contexts related to the query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 147, + 191 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 147, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 147, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel model for the temporal knowledge graph completion task named SToKE, which learns contextualized knowledge representations in terms of joint structural and temporal dimensions. Unlike other GNN-based methods, our model uses a unified BERT architecture to simultaneously explore contextual information of the TKG substructure, i.e., query-relevant structural and temporal neighboring facts. To enable BERT to handle the TKG, we construct an event evolution tree (EET) for each individual query, and introduce temporal embedding and structural matrix to ensure the temporal order and structural dependencies among facts in EET. Through masking the missing entity of query to fine-tune the pre-trained BERT, our model outperforms other methods on three widely used datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 130, + 458 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 130, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 130, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 291, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 291, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 291, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our model simultaneously encodes structural and temporal contexts of the TKG substructure, and uses heuristic strategies to select a portion of query-relevant facts as input texts for PLMs. We can achieve stunning results with these selected facts. However, this work only considers the query-relevant one-hop neighbor facts to achieve a good performance improvement, but ignores the benefits of multi-hop neighbor facts. We leave it for future work to verify the effectiveness of multi-hop paths." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 618, + 170, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 618, + 170, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 618, + 170, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 291, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 291, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 291, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 62025208 and 61932001." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 707, + 127, + 719 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 707, + 127, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 707, + 127, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In NIPS, pages 2787-2795." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icews coded event data. Harvard Data-verse, 12." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kai Chen, Ye Wang, Yitong Li, and Aiping Li. 2022. Rotateqs: Representing temporal information as rotations in quaternion vector space for temporal knowledge graph completion. In ACL, pages 5843-5857." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 526, + 243 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 526, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 526, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulçehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In EMNLP, pages 1724-1734." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 526, + 297 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 526, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 526, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In EMNLP, pages 2001-2011." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 526, + 339 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 526, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 526, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In AAAI, pages 1811-1818." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 347, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 347, + 526, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 347, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ioannis Dikeoulias, Saadullah Amin, and Günter Neumann. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with low-rank and model-agnostic representations. In RepL4NLP@ACL, pages 111-120." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 453, + 526, + 497 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 453, + 526, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 453, + 526, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yifu Gao, Linhui Feng, Zhigang Kan, Yi Han, Linbo Qiao, and Dongsheng Li. 2022. Modeling precursors for temporal knowledge graph reasoning via autoencoder structure. In IJCAI, pages 2044-2051." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 526, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 526, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 526, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 4816-4821." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 558, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 558, + 526, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 558, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rishab Goel, Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Marcus A. Brubaker, and Pascal Poupart. 2020. Diachronic embedding for temporal knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 3988-3995." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 526, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Han, Ruotong Liao, Beiyan Liu, Yao Zhang, Zifeng Ding, Heinz Köpl, Hinrich Schütze, and Volker Tresp. 2022. Enhanced temporal knowledge embeddings with contextualized language representations. CoRR, abs/2203.09590." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bin He, Di Zhou, Jinghui Xiao, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, Nicholas Jing Yuan, and Tong Xu. 2020. BERT-MK: Integrating graph contextualized knowledge into pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 2281-2290." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaoxiong Ji, Shirui Pan, Erik Cambria, Pekka Marttinen, and Philip S. Yu. 2022. A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "425" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33(2):494-514." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 289, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 289, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 289, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In COLING, pages 1715-1724." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 289, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 289, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 289, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In EMNLP, pages 6669-6683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 209, + 289, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 209, + 289, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 209, + 289, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jaehun Jung, Jinhong Jung, and U Kang. 2021. Learning to walk across time for interpretable temporal knowledge graph completion. In KDD, pages 786-795." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Seyed Mehran Kazemi and David Poole. 2018. Simple embedding for link prediction in knowledge graphs. In NeurIPS, pages 4289-4300." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 289, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timothee Lacroix, Guillaume Obozinski, and Nicolas Usunier. 2020. Tensor decompositions for temporal knowledge base completion. In *ICLR*." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 346, + 289, + 379 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 346, + 289, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 346, + 289, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kalev Leetaru and Philip A Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone. In ISA Annual Convention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 388, + 289, + 443 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 388, + 289, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 388, + 289, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In SIGIR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 289, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 2181-2187." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 289, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 289, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 289, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Qi Ju, Haotang Deng, and Ping Wang. 2020. K-BERT: enabling language representation with knowledge graph. In AAAI, pages 2901-2908." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 289, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Johannes Messner, Ralph Abboud, and Ismail Ilkan Ceylan. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph completion using box embeddings. In AAAI, pages 7779-7787." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 600, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 600, + 289, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 600, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In ACL, pages 4710-4723." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dai Quoc Nguyen, Tu Dinh Nguyen, Dat Quoc Nguyen, and Dinh Q. Phung. 2018. A novel embedding model for knowledge base completion based on convolutional neural network. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 327-333." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Robert L. Logan IV, Roy Schwartz, Vidur Joshi, Sameer Singh, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Knowledge enhanced contextual word representations. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 43-54." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 28, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Anthony Colas, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2021. Chronor: Rotation based temporal knowledge graph embedding. In AAAI, pages 6471-6479." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 524, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 524, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 524, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In ESWC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 183, + 524, + 227 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 183, + 524, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 183, + 524, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Xipeng Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Yaru Hu, Xuanjing Huang, and Zheng Zhang. 2020. Colake: Contextualized language and knowledge embedding. In COLING, pages 3660-3670." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 524, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rakshit Trivedi, Hanjun Dai, Yichen Wang, and Le Song. 2017. Know-evolve: Deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs. In ICML, pages 3462-3471." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 524, + 383 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 524, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 524, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In ICML, pages 2071-2080." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 524, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bo Wang, Tao Shen, Guodong Long, Tianyi Zhou, Ying Wang, and Yi Chang. 2021a. Structure-augmented text representation learning for efficient knowledge graph completion. In WWW, pages 1737-1748." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 524, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Liang Wang, Wei Zhao, Zhuoyu Wei, and Jingming Liu. 2022a. Simkgc: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In ACL, pages 4281-4294." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 524, + 571 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 524, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 524, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021b. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 617 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xintao Wang, Qianyu He, Jiaqing Liang, and Yanghua Xiao. 2022b. Language models as knowledge embeddings. In *IJCAI*, pages 2291-2297." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 627, + 524, + 672 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 627, + 524, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 627, + 524, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Wang, Haotong Du, Quanming Yao, and Xuelong Li. 2022c. Search to pass messages for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 6189-6201." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 683, + 524, + 717 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 683, + 524, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 683, + 524, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI, pages 1112-1119." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiapeng Wu, Meng Cao, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Temp: Temporal message passing for temporal knowledge graph completion. In EMNLP, pages 5730-5746." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "426" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chengjin Xu, Yung-Yu Chen, Mojtaba Nayyeri, and Jens Lehmann. 2021. Temporal knowledge graph completion using a linear temporal regularizer and multivector embeddings. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 2569-2578." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Jens Lehmann, and Hamed Shariat Yazdi. 2020a. Temporal knowledge graph embedding model based on additive time series decomposition. In ISWC, pages 654-671." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 244 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chengjin Xu, Mojtaba Nayyeri, Fouad Alkhoury, Hamed Shariat Yazdi, and Jens Lehmann. 2020b. Tero: A time-aware knowledge graph embedding via temporal rotation. In COLING, pages 1583-1593." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 305, + 290, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 305, + 290, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 305, + 290, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. KG-BERT: BERT for knowledge graph completion. CoRR, abs/1909.03193." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 290, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Zhiyi Deng, and Jie Shao. 2021. Spatial-temporal attention network for temporal knowledge graph completion. In DASFAA, pages 207-223." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 290, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiasheng Zhang, Shuang Liang, Yongpan Sheng, and Jie Shao. 2022. Temporal knowledge graph representation learning with local and global evolutions. Knowledge-Based Systems, 251:109234." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 496 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiawei Zhang, Haopeng Zhang, Congying Xia, and Li Sun. 2020a. Graph-bert: Only attention is needed for learning graph representations. CoRR, abs/2001.05140." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, Hengshu Zhu, Zhi-Ping Shi, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020b. Relational graph neural network with hierarchical attention for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI, pages 9612-9619." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 569, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 569, + 290, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 569, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: enhanced language representation with informative entities. In ACL, pages 1441-1451." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyuan Zhang, Xiaoqian Liu, Yi Zhang, Qi Su, Xu Sun, and Bin He. 2020c. Pretrain-kge: Learning knowledge representation from pretrained language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 259-266." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhan. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In AAAI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) and the proportion of correct quadruples ranked in top 1, 3 and 10 (Hits@1, Hits@3, and Hits@10) to evaluate the model performance. There are two filtered setting, static filtered (Bordes et al., 2013) and time-wise filtered (Goel et al., 2020). The static filtered setting is not suitable for TKGs. For example, given a test query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,\\?,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", assume that there are two other quadruples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o',t')" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o'',t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t' < t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The static filtered setting ignores time information and removes both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o''" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the candidates. However, the fact " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o')" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is temporally valid on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", instead of timesamp " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In this way, the filtered setting wrongly removes quite a few quadruples and thus leads to higher ranking scores. A more appropriate timewise filtered setting is only to remove " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o''" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the candidates. Specifically, for each test quadruple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we create two queries: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,\\?,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(?,r,o,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For the first query, the model ranks all entities in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o \\cup C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with their scores from Eq.(4), where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C = \\{o':o' \\in \\mathcal{E}, (s,r,o',t) \\notin \\mathcal{G}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We follow a similar approach for the second query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 413, + 485, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 413, + 485, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 413, + 485, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Detailed Experimental Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We choose pre-trained BERT-base model (Devlin et al., 2019) with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = 12" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K = 12" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " self-attention heads and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d = 768" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " hidden dimension of embeddings as the initialization. We select the optimal hyperparameters by grid searching according to MRR on the validation set, and set the following hyperparameters in fine-tuning with Adam: batch size: 128, learning rate: 2e-5 and dropout rate: 0.1. We use the RFF strategy to construct the event evelution tree. In EET, the length of time window " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the number of concurrent facts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are set to 10 and 2 for ICEWS14, 14 and 2 for ICEWS05-15, 5 and 2 for GDELT dataset. The length of input text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 107, 147 and 57 for ICEWS and GDELT respectively, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l = (m * 2 + 1) * (n * 2 + 1) + 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, our SToKE consists of a embedding layer, a mask transformer encoder and a MLP. The parameters of embedding layer consists of token embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4,d)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", segment embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(2,d)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", temporal position and displacement embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(l + |\\mathcal{T}|,d)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and three matrices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{\\Delta t}3d^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The mask transformer encoder contains 12 mask self attention layers, where the parameters of each layer consist of three matrices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{q},W_{k},W_{v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a concatenated linear layer, where the parameter quantity of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "427" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 217 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 217 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 217 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
GPU ResourceNVIDIA RTX A6000
HyperparameterSearch BoundBest Setup
length of time window mchoice{5, 10, 12, 14}10(ICEWS14), 14(ICEWS05-15), 5(GDELT)
number of concurrent facts nchoice{1, 2, 4}2
length of input text lchoice{57, 107, 147}107(ICEWS14), 147(ICEWS05-15), 57(GDELT)
number of epochschoice{30, 50}30 (ICEWS05-15, GDELT), 50 (ICEWS14)
batch sizechoice{32, 64, 128}128
learning ratechoice{2e-5, 5e-4}2e-5
droupout ratechoice{0.1, 0.2}0.1
number of model parameters-98.6M(ICEWS14), 106.6M(ICEWS05-15), 88.4M(GDELT)
gpu hours-12h(ICEWS14), 40h(ICEWS05-15), 60h(GDELT)
", + "image_path": "e242ea7ec182d68443bbd8f65dbd3a207cd7d2db99c01bff7116ffb4087feea2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 186, + 224, + 406, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 186, + 224, + 406, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 186, + 224, + 406, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Additional implementation details of SToKE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 257, + 289, + 359 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 257, + 289, + 359 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 257, + 289, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 257, + 289, + 359 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4f93d0105be2b872f3c4df3ed8078d6c5ef04e5425467fade80a9f74c98bdc4b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 368, + 273, + 381 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 368, + 273, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 368, + 273, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Parameter sensitivity on our SToKE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "each part is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the FFN is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8d^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The number of MLP parameters is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d^{2} + d(|\\mathcal{E}| + 4)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Ignoring Layernorm and Bias parameters, the amount of parameters is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "148d^{2} + d(2|\\mathcal{E}| + |\\mathcal{T}| + l + 10)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, we implement our model in PyTorch with NVIDIA RTX A6000. As shown in Table 5, we report the hyperparameter search bounds and best configurations along with thegpu resource." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 193, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 193, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 193, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Sensitivity Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report the performance changes on the ICEWS14 dataset by varying the hyper-parameters, including the length of time window " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the number of concurrent facts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Figure 3(a) shows the performance with various time window lengths. It can be observed that our model performs better with the longer time window " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " used. However, MRR is relatively stable at around 10, and considering the computation cost, we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 293, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 10 on this dataset. As shown in Figure 3(b), the model performance rises and falls as the number of neighboring facts within the same timestamp increases. The probable reason is that too many concurrent facts bring knowledge noise, which affects the model's judgment of the missing fact." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "428" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 122, + 142, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 122, + 142, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 122, + 142, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 524, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 524, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 524, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are no potential risks in our work. We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 192, + 414, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 192, + 414, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 192, + 414, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 207, + 213, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 207, + 213, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 207, + 213, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract and 1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 229, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 229, + 398, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 229, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 243, + 138, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 243, + 138, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 243, + 138, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 284, + 381, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 284, + 381, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 284, + 381, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 321, + 391, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 321, + 391, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 321, + 391, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Dataset and Metrics, 4.2 Baselines, Appendix B and Appendix C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 342, + 464, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 342, + 464, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 342, + 464, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 524, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 391, + 524, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 391, + 524, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 391, + 524, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 446, + 524, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 446, + 524, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 446, + 524, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use datasets from open sources, and do not create new datasets or use data from a particular source." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 482, + 524, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 482, + 524, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 482, + 524, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 523, + 524, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 523, + 524, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 523, + 524, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use public datasets and do not use any related content, so it is not necessary to take this step in our work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 557, + 524, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 557, + 524, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 557, + 524, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 587, + 198, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 587, + 198, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 587, + 198, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 608, + 524, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 608, + 524, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 608, + 524, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 677, + 198, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 677, + 198, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 677, + 198, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Dataset and Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 522, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 522, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 522, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "429" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 294, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 294, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 294, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 329, + 102 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 329, + 102 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 329, + 102 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Main Results, 4.4 Ablation Study and 4.5 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 523, + 327 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 523, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 523, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 523, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 159, + 523, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 159, + 523, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 159, + 523, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 523, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 523, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 523, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? 4.3 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 523, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 523, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 523, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 522, + 367 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 522, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 522, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 376, + 523, + 629 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 376, + 523, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 376, + 523, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 376, + 523, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 426, + 523, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 426, + 523, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 426, + 523, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 489, + 523, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 489, + 523, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 489, + 523, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 552, + 519, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 552, + 519, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 552, + 519, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 588, + 523, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 588, + 523, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 588, + 523, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "430" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_content_list.json b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c33a11cc1a1d9cb9c94ed232bdc3320a90eb2bf --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2124 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 124, + 82, + 872, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhiwen Xie $^{1}$ , Yi Zhang $^{2}$ , Jin Liu $^{1*}$ , Guangyou Zhou $^{2*}$ , Jimmy Xiangji Huang $^{3}$", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 129, + 831, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ School of Computer Science, Wuhan University", + "bbox": [ + 302, + 148, + 699, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ School of Computer Science, Central China Normal University", + "bbox": [ + 240, + 165, + 761, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3Information Retrieval and Knowledge Management Research Lab, York University", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 181, + 840, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "xiezhiwen@whu.edu.cn, yizhang@mails.ccnu.edu.cn,", + "bbox": [ + 265, + 199, + 737, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "jinliu@whu.edu.cn, gyzhou@mail.ccnu.edu.cn, jhuang@yorku.ca", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 215, + 789, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relation prediction on knowledge graphs (KGs) attempts to infer the missing links between entities. Most previous studies are limited to the transductive setting where all entities must be seen during the training, making them unable to perform reasoning on emerging entities. Recently, the inductive setting is proposed to handle the entities in the test phase to be unseen during training. However, it suffers from the inefficient reasoning under the enclosing subgraph extraction issue and the lack of effective entity-independent feature modeling. To this end, we propose a novel Query Adaptive Anchor Representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we extract one opening subgraph and perform reasoning by one time for all candidate triples, which is more efficient when the number of candidate triples is large. Second, we define some query adaptive anchors which are independent on any specific entity. Based on these anchors, we take advantage of the transferable entity-independent features (relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) that can be used to produce entity embeddings for emerging unseen entities. Such entity-independent features is modeled by a query-aware graph attention network on the opening subgraph. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed QAAR outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in inductive relation prediction task.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 278, + 460, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 728, + 258, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge graphs (KGs) store a large amount of facts regarding the real-world knowledge in the form of $(h,r,t)$ , where $h, t$ are head and tail entities and $r$ is the relation between $h$ and $t$ . They have played important roles in various downstream applications, including but not limited to question answering (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Li and Xiong, 2022), semantic search (Xiong et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2021) and many more. Nowadays many", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "large-scale KGs such as Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008), Dbpedia (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yago (Hoffart et al., 2013; Mahdisoltani et al., 2015) and Wikidata (Vrandecic and Krötzsch, 2014) have been constructed, but they still suffer from an incompleteness problem. To make up such limitation, relation prediction or knowledge graph embedding (KGE) has been proposed to infer the missing links in KGs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The conventional relation prediction models, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), TuckER (Balazevic et al., 2019), CompGCN (Vashishth et al., 2020), KBGAT (Nathani et al., 2019), ReInceptionE (Xie et al., 2020), DisenKGAT (Wu et al., 2021), PairRE (Chao et al., 2021), FFTAttH (Xiao et al., 2022), KGTuner (Zhang et al., 2022) have successively achieved satisfactory performance on relation prediction. They all follow a general strategy to represent the entities in the low-dimension vector space by using the KG structure and neighborhood information in the transductive setting, where all entities must be seen in the training phase. However, many KGs are evolving and new entities are emerging every day in the real world. These conventional relation prediction models in the transductive settings cannot effectively learn the embeddings for the new entities unless re-training the whole KGs from scratch. Recently, researchers have focused on relation prediction in the inductive setting, where new entities are emerging while testing. Compared to relation prediction in the transductive setting, the inductive setting is more challenging since the missing links can be inferred in KGs with unseen entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 884, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Currently, models on relation predictions in the inductive setting can be divided into two categories (Mai et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2022): rule-based methods and GCN-based methods. Rule-based methods (e.g., NeuralLP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 295, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14041", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 14041-14053", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 774, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e1cdb8df6377261d3205284707d11f07e8a5914a700a202c33b6d6612ed5e97c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 82, + 428, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/75aebd81880e7a62c65fefbde96088e51b6e9a513ac8b049e1fd305e8b6c0ad2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)", + "Figure 1: An example of node labeling of previous inductive relation prediction methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022). The subfigure (a) is a subgraph surrounding entity Barack Obama and the query is (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are extracted enclosing subgraphs for candidate triples (Barack Obama, Nationality, U.S.), (Barack Obama, Nationality, Chicago) and (Barack Obama, Nationality, Kenya). And the nodes in (b), (c), (d) are labeled by using the distances between each node and head (tail) node in corresponding candidate triple, which is widely used in previous works." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 433, + 80, + 559, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c4e8936b07a72386d390e7af17f96e7ac5162d41c459f04aefc9228b52cdadfc.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 571, + 80, + 702, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b36aa146885385878707772306c2ab4d93c274f4a1998cd788dbf2ec98aa98ba.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 80, + 840, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2018) etc.) are able to handle the relation prediction with new/unseen entities since the rules are independent of any specific entities, their performance is usually insufficient due to the limitation of the flexible issue. GCN-based methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), require to extract a $k$ -hop enclosing subgraph1 for every candidate triple $(h, r, t)$ and then perform reasoning on all these candidate subgraphs. However, these methods suffer from the inefficient issue since the number of candidate triples is usually large. Figure 1 shows an example of the query (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are enclosing subgraphs extracted from graph (a) for three different candidate triples. Though the subgraphs (b) and (c) have the same structure, these previous methods have to perform reasoning two times, which will spend more reasoning time. Moreover, previous methods only use the distance as features and ignore rich local structure information in subgraphs, which leads to sub-optimal performance. As shown in Figure 1, the entity Honolulu in subfigure (b) is labeled as \"(1,1)\", which is the same with the entity Malik Obama in subfigure (d). This leads to similar node labeling for the nodes in (b) and (d), although these two subgraphs are totally different. Using these weak node features will result in poor performance since it is hard for the model to distinguish different subgraphs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 367, + 489, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the above analysis, we are motivated to address two research issues: (1) How to develop a model to perform inductive reasoning for all candidate triples with only one subgraph and one-time node labeling and reasoning. (2) How to extract adequate transferable entity-independent anchor $^2$ knowledge to produce more expressive entity embeddings for emerging entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 884, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these issues, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model. Specifically, for a given query $(h,r,?)$ where $?$ denotes a missing entity to be inferred, instead of extracting an enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple, we first extract a $k$ -hop opening subgraph surrounding the query entity $h$ for all candidates. This enables our model to perform reasoning by one time to rank all candidates, which is more efficient when the number of candidates is large. Then, we propose a dynamic anchor-based node labeling method to label each node with rich entity-independent information. Specifically, we construct three kinds of anchors for each query $(h,r,?)$ , including relation types, the center node of the subgraph and the one-hop neighbors of the center node which is adaptively selected according to the query entity $h$ . Based on these anchors, we can label each node in the subgraph with three kinds of features, namely relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. These rich node features en", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 497, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2The anchors in this paper denote the transferable meta knowledge, which is independent of any specific entities and can be transferred to new graphs with unseen entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 844, + 882, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3Unlike the enclosing subgraph, the $k$ -hop opening subgraph of entity $h$ contains all neighboring nodes with the maximum $k$ -hop distance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 881, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ Following (Teru et al., 2020), a $k$ -hop enclosing subgraph between nodes $h$ and $t$ contains all nodes that appear on the graph from $h$ to $t$ with the maximum $k$ -hop distance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14042", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d5d1cd50b14423ad59f46b7e6097a3c055cd705a2ba5ba651051d14cc927c2c4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overview of the proposed QAAR model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 83, + 884, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "able our model to learn expressive representation for subgraphs. Finally, a query-aware graph attention neural network is proposed to perform reasoning on subgraphs by gathering query-related neighborhood features. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that our proposed QAAR significantly outperforms previous methods, and achieves the new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance for inductive relation prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 313, + 490, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Our Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 275, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2 illustrates the overview of the proposed QAAR, which consists of four modules: (1) opening subgraph extraction; (2) query adaptive anchor construction; (3) anchor-based node labeling; and (4) query-aware reasoning. Next, we will describe each module in details.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 489, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Opening Subgraph Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 607, + 400, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-hop subgraphs can provide rich evidence to infer missing links due to the implicit correlation between different relations. For example, the relation $(A, \\text{farther}, B)$ can be inferred according to the two-hop facts $(A, \\text{mother}, C)$ and $(C, \\text{husband}, B)$ . Thus, we first extract a multi-hop subgraph for inductive relation prediction. Different from GraIL (Teru et al., 2020) and its extensions (e.g., TACT (Chen et al., 2021), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021) and ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022)), which extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple $(h, r, t)$ , we attempt to extract one opening subgraph for all candidate entities so that we can score all candidates with one-time reasoning on the subgraph. For a given query $(h, r, ?)$ , we first construct a $k$ -hop opening subgraph for the query entity $h$ by extracting the neighboring nodes surrounding $h$ with maximum $k$ -hop distance. We", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "denote the $k$ -hop opening subgraph of $h$ as $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 313, + 880, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Query Adaptive Anchor Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 343, + 853, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To learn transferable entity-independent node features in a given subgraph, we first design some anchors which can be shared by different subgraphs. Ideally, the anchors should be independent of any specific entities and have the ability to express local structure information of the given subgraph. To this end, we introduce the following three kinds of anchors:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 884, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relation types. Intuitively, the relation types are common information for subgraphs with different entities. Even on a new KG with unseen entities, the same set of relation types can be used to express the relations among entities. The set of relation types are denoted as $R = \\{r_1, r_2, \\dots, r_{|R|}\\}$ , where $r_i$ is a relation in the relation set and $|R|$ is the number of relations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 882, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Center node. In our paper, each subgraph is extracted surrounding the given query entity $h$ which can be considered as the center node of the subgraph and each opening subgraph has a unique center node. We use the center node as an anchor and denote it as $node_0^4$ . With the center node, the model can be aware of where is the start node to perform reasoning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 882, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One-hop neighbors of center node. Besides, we also define the one-hop neighbors of the center node as anchors to better learn the local structure of subgraphs. For inductive relation prediction, we cannot directly use entity-specific embeddings to represent these one-hop neighbors. To address this problem, we leverage relationship between each", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 755, + 884, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Note that $h$ denotes a specific query entity in KG, while node $_0$ is a special symbol to represent the center node of a subgraph, which is transferable to any subgraph.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14043", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The center node of the center node $h$ is a neighboring node and the center node to denote the neighbors. Specifically, for a neighboring entity $t$ which is connected to the center node $h$ with a triple $(h, r_i, t)$ , the neighboring entity $t$ can be denoted as $r_i^c$ which means a node connected to the center node with relation $r_i$ . Take the triple (Barack Obama, PlaceOfBirth, Honolulu) as an example, the entity Honolulu can be denoted as \"the PlaceofBirth of Barack Obama\". Thus, all neighboring nodes of the center node can be represented by combining the relation and center node, which can yield a set of one-hop neighborhood anchors $D = \\{r_i^c | (h, r_i, t) \\in \\mathcal{T}_k(h)\\}$ , where $\\mathcal{T}_k(h)$ denotes the set of triples in $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to the above definition, we can obtain a set of anchor relations $R$ and a set of anchor nodes $\\text{Anc} = \\{ \\text{node}_0 \\} \\cup D$ . These anchor relations and the nodes are independent on any specific entity, which can be acted as the transferred metaknowledge to bridge the gap between the training KG and the test KG.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 310, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Anchor-based Node Labeling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 389, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this subsection, we describe how to label each node in the opening subgraph using the anchors $R$ and $Anc$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 487, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relation-aware features. Given a node $n$ in the subgraph $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ , we extract the node's neighboring relations denoted as $\\mathcal{R}(n)$ . We can capture some important type information about the node from these neighboring relations. For example, the tail entities of relation PlaceOfBirth are entities with a place type. Therefore, we use these relations to learn embedding for node $n$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 487, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} = \\sum_ {r \\in \\mathcal {R} (n)} \\mathbf {r} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 243, + 646, + 487, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{r}$ is the embedding for the relation $r$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 436, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Structure-aware features. Only using the relation information cannot adequately express the structure of a given subgraph. In this paper, we propose a structure-aware labeling method to enrich the node features with local structure information. In a given subgraph, the center node and its one-hop neighboring nodes are viewed as anchor nodes $Anc$ as defined in Section 2.2. Thus, we can leverage neighboring relationship between each node with these anchor nodes to learn local structure of each node in the subgraph. Formally, let $\\mathcal{A}_j(n) = \\{a_i|a_i\\in \\mathcal{N}_j(n)\\bigcap Anc\\}$ be the $j$ -th hop neighboring anchor nodes of node $n$ , where", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathcal{N}_j(n)$ denotes the $j$ -th hop neighbors of node $n$ The $j$ -th hop structure feature of node $n$ can be denoted as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {j} = \\sum_ {a _ {i} \\in \\mathcal {A} _ {j} (n)} \\mathbf {a} _ {i} \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 630, + 130, + 880, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{a}_i$ is the embedding of anchor node $a_i$ . Note that by gathering neighboring anchor nodes from different hops, we can obtain multi-hop structure-aware features $\\{\\mathbf{v}_n^0,\\mathbf{v}_n^1,\\dots ,\\mathbf{v}_n^J\\}$ , where $J$ is the maximum hop of the structure-aware features5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 170, + 882, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Distance features. The distance can reveal the degree of correlation between each node and the center node. Therefore, we also leverage distance features to enrich the representation of each node. Specifically, we visit the neighboring nodes from different hops of the center node and obtain the shortest distance between each node and the center node. Let $d_{n}$ denote the distance between node $n$ and the center node, the embedding of distance feature is denoted as $\\mathbf{v}_{n}^{d}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 250, + 882, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, the relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features are combined to learn the initial embedding of each node $n$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 412, + 880, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {0} = \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {0} + \\dots + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {J} + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {d} \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 469, + 880, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.4 Query-aware Reasoning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 511, + 746, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the above sections, we have described how to label the nodes for a extracted opening subgraph with relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. Then, we can perform reasoning on the opening subgraph. In this paper, we use a query-aware graph attention neural network (GAT) to propagate neighborhood information in the opening subgraph. Given a query $(h,r,\\ref{eq:1})$ and a $k$ -hop subgraph $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ , we can aggregate the neighborhood features for each node $n$ in subgraph $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 532, + 882, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {(r, p) \\in \\mathcal {N} (n)} \\alpha_ {p} ^ {l} [ \\mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} | | \\mathbf {r} _ {p} ] \\mathbf {W} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} ^ {l} \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 703, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathcal{N}(n) = \\{(r_p,p)|(n,r_p,p)\\in \\mathcal{T}_k(h)\\}$ is the set of neighbors of node $n$ , $\\mathcal{T}_k(h)$ is the set of triples in $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ . $\\mathbf{W}^l$ and $\\mathbf{b}^l$ are trainable parameters in the $l$ -th GAT layer, $\\alpha_{p}^{l}$ is the attention weight for the neighbor $(r_p,p)$ which is computed as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 749, + 882, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\alpha_ {p} ^ {l} = \\sigma \\left(\\mathbf {r} _ {a} ^ {T} \\left(\\left[ \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {r} _ {p} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} \\right] \\mathbf {W} _ {a} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} _ {a} ^ {l}\\right)\\right) \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 840, + 880, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5Note that $k$ in $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ denotes the maximum hop of the opening subgraph surrounding the center node $h$ , while $J$ denotes the maximum hop of structure-aware neighboring anchors for each node $n$ in the subgraph $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 868, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14044", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4e131af43a5fb87352342fd6417fa5d3e426bff9e45ee60ee83ed395de1d9196.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
#Rel#Ent#Tri#Rel#Ent#Tri#R#Ent#Tri
V1train9274666781832000522614109155540
test9922199114615002404142251034
V2train1069541896820330001208588256410109
test1029234863176200050927949375521
V3train111207832150218400022394142464720117
test11508474701873000913712249219668
V3train9386198422225000339167720929289
test97208151572043500145546132948520
", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 80, + 823, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Statistics of the inductive datasets. \"#Rel\" denotes the number of relations, \"#Ent\" denotes the number of entities, \"#Tri\" denotes the number of triples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 256, + 882, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{W}_a^l$ and $\\mathbf{b}_a^l$ are the trainable parameters, $\\mathbf{r}_a$ is the attention embedding of the query relation $r$ , $\\sigma$ is the sigmoid activation function.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 311, + 487, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To alleviate the vanishing gradient problem, we use a gated layer to integrate the node features as well as its neighborhood features.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 360, + 487, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l + 1} = g \\times \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} + (1 - g) \\times \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} \\qquad (6)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 419, + 487, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $g$ is the gate to control the weight between the $l$ -th layer node feature $\\mathbf{e}_n^l$ and the neighborhood feature $\\mathbf{e}_n^r$ , which is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 487, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ng = \\sigma ([ \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} | | \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} ] \\mathbf {W} _ {g} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} _ {g} ^ {l}) \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 510, + 487, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{W}_g^l$ and $\\mathbf{b}_g^l$ are learnable parameters of the gate mechanism.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 541, + 487, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we stack query-aware GAT with $L$ layers to propagate multi-hop neighborhood features and obtain the final node embeddings by concatenating representations of all layers, namely $\\mathbf{e}_n = [\\mathbf{e}_n^0 ||\\mathbf{e}_n^1 ||\\dots ||\\mathbf{e}_n^L ]$ . Then, an average-pooling layer is applied to obtain the representation of the subgraph $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 575, + 487, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {e} _ {\\mathcal {G}} = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {E} _ {k} |} \\sum_ {n \\in \\mathcal {E} _ {k}} \\mathbf {e} _ {n} \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 697, + 487, + 738 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sequentially, we can compute the embedding for the given query $(h,r,\\ref{eq:1})$ by taking into account the subgraph embedding $\\mathbf{e}_{\\mathcal{G}}$ , the query entity embedding $\\mathbf{e}_h$ and the query relation embedding $\\mathbf{r}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 747, + 487, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {e} _ {\\text {q u e r y}} = \\left[ \\mathbf {e} _ {\\mathcal {G}} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {e} _ {h} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {r} \\right] \\mathbf {W} _ {q} + \\mathbf {b} _ {q} \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 825, + 487, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{W}_q$ and $\\mathbf{b}_q$ are the trainable parameters of the query embedding layer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, the score for a candidate answer entity $t$ can be obtained using the inner product of the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "query embedding $\\mathbf{e}_{query}$ and the candidate answer entity embedding $\\mathbf{e}_t$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 312, + 880, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf (h, r, t) = \\sigma (\\mathbf {e} _ {\\text {q u e r y}} ^ {T} \\mathbf {e} _ {t}) \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 603, + 354, + 882, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that all the candidate answer entities are in the same subgraph $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ . Therefore, we can compute the scores for all candidates by performing reasoning on the subgraph $\\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ by one time. This is different from previous methods which need extract and process a specific subgraph for every candidate triple.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 384, + 882, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following (Teru et al., 2020), we randomly sample a negative answer entity $t'$ for each query $(h, r, ?)$ and correct answer $t$ . The goal is to predict a higher score for each positive answer entity and lower score for the negative answer entity. Thus, we use the following cross entropy loss function to train the model:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 498, + 882, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\sum_ {(h, r, t) \\in \\mathcal {G} (h)} \\log \\left(f \\left(h, r, t ^ {\\prime}\\right)\\right) - \\log \\left(f (h, r, t)\\right) \\tag {11}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 619, + 882, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the query $(?,r,t)$ , which needs to predict the missing head entity, we use a inverse form $(t,r^{-1},?)$ to convert it into a query with a missing tail entity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 668, + 882, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 744, + 655, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Datasets and Evaluate Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 769, + 796, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate the inductive relation prediction performance of our QAAR, we conduct extensive experiments on three widely used datasets which are proposed in GraIL (Teru et al., 2020). These inductive datasets are extracted from WN18RR (Dettmers et al., 2018), FB15k-237(Toutanova et al., 2015) and NELL-995 (Xiong et al., 2017b). Each inductive dataset consists of train and test KGs and these", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14045", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/74864438c61e7d914e72aa49f136873d32769776af967c378fcbcd06d511cc0c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.9452.9055.8855.16
DRUM†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.7352.9055.8855.10
RuleN†80.8578.2353.3971.5971.0149.7677.8287.6985.6075.21
Meta-iKG-----66.9674.0871.8972.2871.30
MorsE84.1481.5070.9279.6179.0483.1795.6795.6995.8992.61
GraIL†82.4578.6858.4373.4173.2464.1581.8082.8389.2979.51
CoMPILE†83.6079.8260.6975.4974.9067.6482.9884.6787.4480.68
TACT†84.0481.6367.9776.5677.5565.7683.5685.2088.6980.80
ConGLR†85.6492.9370.7492.9085.5568.2985.9888.6189.3182.93
NodePiece83.0088.6078.5080.7082.7087.3093.9094.4094.9092.35
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 80, + 816, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4b566685ad7d43e783419ca60b8fa0a66d8cc6ee3c0ce28881033b941bc1e666.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. $\\dagger$ means the results are taken from (Lin et al., 2022). Other results are taken from their original papers. \"Avg.\" denotes the average values of the four versions. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†40.7878.7382.7180.5870.70
DRUM†19.4278.5582.7180.5865.31
RuleN†53.5081.7577.2661.3568.46
Meta-iKG64.2077.9177.4173.1273.16
MorsE65.2080.7087.6753.4471.75
GraIL†59.5093.2591.4173.1979.33
CoMPILE†58.3893.8792.7775.1980.05
TACT*79.8088.9194.0273.7884.12
ConGLR*81.0794.9294.3681.6187.99
NodePiece89.0090.1093.6089.3090.50
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 326, + 485, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 487, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "two KGs have no overlapping entities. And there are four versions with different sizes for each inductive dataset. The details of these datasets are shown in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 576, + 487, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following the prior work (Teru et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022), we use hits@10 as the evaluation metric and compute hits@10 by ranking each test triple against 50 negative triples and check whether the positive triple is ranked in top 10. We run each experiment five times and report the mean results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 640, + 487, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 751, + 346, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implement our model using Pytorch. We optimize our model using Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015). We choose the optimal hyperparameters via grid search. We select the batch size from $\\{4,8,16,32\\}$ , the learning rate from $\\{0.0005,0.001,0.002\\}$ , weight decay from $\\{1e-2,1e-3,1e-4\\}$ , dropout rate from $\\{0.1,0.2,0.3\\}$ , the number of GAT layers from $\\{1,2,3\\}$ , the subgraph size $k$ from $\\{2,3,4,5\\}$ , the maximum depth $J$ of structure", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "aware features from $\\{1,2,3\\}$ , the dimension size of output entity embedding from $\\{30,50,80\\}$ . The best hyper-parameters are selected according to the hits@10 on validation set. Finally, the learning rate is set to 0.001, the batch size is set to 16, the weight decay is set to 1e-3, the dropout rate is set to 0.1, the number of GAT layers is set to 2, and the subgraph size $k$ is set to 4, the maximum depth of structure features is set to $J = 2$ , the dimension size of output entity embedding is set to 80.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 330, + 884, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 505, + 628, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare our QAAR with the following rule-based models: Neural-LP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al., 2018), and GCN-based models: Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), MorsE (Chen et al., 2022), GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022) and NodePiece (Galkin et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 884, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 726, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 and Table 3 show the experimental results on the four versions from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 under the evaluation metric of hits@10. From Table 2 and Table 3, we can have two interesting findings: (1) The GCN-based methods, which leverage GCNs to aggregate and propagate neighborhood information, performs better than rule-based methods. This indicates that rule-based methods are insufficient to obtain good performance for inductive relation prediction due to the brittleness of logical rules. Instead, GCN-based methods are more robust to capture complex structure patterns in KGs. (2) Our QAAR achieves better performance than most of SOTA GCN-based", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14046", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0a75a5b02f8c77ca24ee306362867417e04390f158c5d7a141ac7ba521faa599.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
QAAR w/o D87.2381.7486.4486.9185.5885.8590.7993.2994.1891.03
Δ-1.59-5.13-1.74-2.24-2.67-4.63-5.02-2.58-2.03-3.56
QAAR w/o R86.1786.1686.7789.4387.1384.6392.4693.6495.6491.59
Δ-2.65-0.71-1.41+0.28-1.12-5.85-3.35-2.23-0.57-3.00
QAAR w/o S85.6379.5986.6188.1785.0087.3194.3594.2195.2992.79
Δ-3.19-7.28-1.57-0.98-3.25-3.17-1.46-1.66-0.92-1.80
QAAR w/o A86.9681.5187.7688.3886.1584.3994.9794.9195.3692.41
Δ-1.86-5.36-0.42-0.77-2.10-6.09-0.84-0.96-0.85-2.18
", + "bbox": [ + 173, + 80, + 823, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2efa22a0d552c642a7166610f9731192b9aa18c052ba8b94b090ff1dd85bbc30.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. $\\Delta$ denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model. $\\Delta$ denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
QAAR w/o D87.0090.3390.614.8188.19
Δ-2.50-5.99-3.95-6.34-4.69
QAAR w/o R85.5093.2792.8389.1990.20
Δ-4.00-3.05-1.73-1.96-2.68
QAAR w/o S82.5092.8592.5890.2888.55
Δ-7.00-3.47-1.98-0.87-3.33
QAAR w/o A86.0091.3892.0990.1589.91
Δ-3.50-4.94-2.47-1.00-2.97
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 294, + 482, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 436, + 485, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "methods in term of hits@10 (e.g., our model achieves the best performance on 10 out of 12 versions of the inductive datasets). On the average hits@10 metrics of these three datasets, our QAAR outperforms other SOTA models. Compared to previous SOTA method ConGLR, our QAAR can achieve $2.7\\%$ , $11.63\\%$ and $4.89\\%$ improvements on the average hits@10 metrics of WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets respectively. And compared to the SOTA method NodePiece, our QAAR outperforms NodePiece by $5.55\\%$ , $2.24\\%$ and $2.38\\%$ margins on these three datasets. Compared with previous SOTA GCN-based methods, such as GraIL, TACT, CoMPILE, ConGLR and NodePiece, the proposed QAAR is able to capture richer transferable entity-independent features (e.g., relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) to learn the inductive embeddings for the nodes in a subgraph. The experimental results demonstrate that our QAAR is superior to current SOTA models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 493, + 489, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 847, + 278, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this subsection, we perform an ablation study to investigate how each module in QAAR affects the performance. Specifically, for the node label", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing, we use relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features to label each node. To study the contributions of these labeling strategies, we construct three variant models: \"QAAR w/o R\" denotes the model removing relation-aware features from QAAR model, \"QAAR w/o S\" denotes the model without using structure-aware features, and \"QAAR w/o D\" denotes the model without using distance features. Moreover, we also investigate the effect of query-aware graph attention layers by replacing it with GCN layers and obtain a variant model \"QAAR w/o A\".", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 297, + 884, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4 and Table 5 show the experimental results of ablation study on the inductive datasets regarding the evaluation metric of hits@10. From the results, we can see that the performances of all variant models have decreased to some extent. This demonstrates all modules in QAAR play important roles for the performance improvement. Concretely, different components in QAAR have different effect on these inductive datasets. For WN18RR dataset, the structure-aware and distance features have more positive impact on the performance, while the relation-aware features have less positive impact and even slightly hurt the performance on v4 of WN18RR. This is because the relations in WN18RR express little entity type information. Take the most frequent relation \"hypernym\" in WN18RR as an example, we cannot infer the entity type for it. Instead, for FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets, the relations express more useful entity type information, which can help to improve the performance. Take the relation \"Place-of-Birth\" in FB15k-237 as an example, we can infer that the head entity of this relation is a person and the tail entity is a place. On average, all three types of features can contribute to the improvements of the performance. Moreover, the query-aware graph", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 500, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14047", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d9a0134f7b108525bd508cc0d96ca3440eb65cc714108bf17e80cc28e9850c9e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
#Neg.WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
GraILQAARGraILQAARGraILQAAR
2035.825.78147.6611.6363.8715.85
5052.385.92244.7812.0879.1915.98
8066.675.98324.3312.2891.5516.21
12081.526.23427.2912.46107.0216.73
15093.076.25498.3212.53136.7316.85
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 482, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995. \"#Neg.\" denotes the number of negative candidates to be ranked. The reasoning times are measured in seconds.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 166, + 487, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "attention reasoning is also beneficial to relation prediction (QAAR vs. \"QAAR w/o A\"), which indicates that the query-aware graph attention layers can aggregate more relevant neighborhood information during reasoning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 266, + 489, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.6 Efficiency Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 309, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we investigate the reasoning efficiency regarding the enclosing subgraph extraction vs. the opening subgraph extraction. We note that most previous inductive relation prediction models, such as CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), are all based on the enclosing subgraph extraction on the basis of GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), and take more time to perform reasoning since they consider more additional mechanisms. Therefore, we choose GraIL as the representative baseline. Table 6 shows the reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL995. It can be seen that our QAAR can spend less reasoning time than the GraIL model on these three datasets. Specifically, when the number of negative candidates is 50, the reasoning time of QAAR is about 9x faster than GraIL on WN18RR, 20x faster on FB15k-237, 5x faster on NELL-995. We can also find that the reasoning time of GraIL will dramatically increases when the number of negative candidates increases. Different from GraIL, the reasoning time of our QAAR remains at a stable level for different number of candidates. The reason is that our QAAR is able to rank all candidates in one opening subgraph with one-time reasoning, while GraIL will extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate and perform multiple reasoning on all these subgraphs. These empirical results verify the claim that our QAAR can perform more efficient reasoning than previous methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 640, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we develop a model to rank all candidate triples in one opening subgraph. Second, we design three types of query adaptive anchors for subgraphs and extract three kinds of entity-independent features including relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features, which are useful for inductive relation prediction. Finally, we use a query-aware graph attention model to perform inductive reasoning on subgraphs. The experimental results on 12 versions of inductive relation prediction datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed QAAR model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 112, + 885, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 370, + 613, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although our QAAR achieves better performance on inductive relation prediction, it still suffers from some limitations. First, for a give query we extract a $k$ -hop subgraph without using any sampling method, which will require large GPU memory when the extracted subgraph is large. Second, our QAAR does not leverage logical rules to enhance the performance which has shown useful in previous methods (Lin et al., 2022). We believe that our method can be further improved by incorporating logical rules. We will leave these opening issues in the future work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 400, + 884, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 609, + 680, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61972290 and 61972173, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. CCNU22QN015), and Wuhan Knowledge Innovation Project (No. 2022010801010278). This work was also supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, an NSERC CREATE award in ADERSIM6, the York Research Chairs (YRC) program and an ORFRE (Ontario Research Fund-Research Excellence) award in BRAIN Alliance7. We thank anonymous reviewers for their thorough review comments on this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 639, + 885, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6http://www.yorku.ca/adersim", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 891, + 715, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7http://brainalliance.ca", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 673, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14048", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ivana Balazevic, Carl Allen, and Timothy M. Hospedales. 2019. Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5184-5193.", + "Kurt D. Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 10-12, 2008, pages 1247-1250. ACM.", + "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 2787-2795.", + "Linlin Chao, Jianshan He, Taifeng Wang, and Wei Chu. 2021. *PairRE: Knowledge graph embeddings via paired relation vectors*. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4360-4369. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiajun Chen, Huarui He, Feng Wu, and Jie Wang. 2021. Topology-aware correlations between relations for inductive link prediction in knowledge graphs. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6271-6278. AAAI Press.", + "Mingyang Chen, Wen Zhang, Yushan Zhu, Hongting Zhou, Zonggang Yuan, Changliang Xu, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Meta-knowledge transfer for inductive knowledge graph embedding. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 927-937. ACM.", + "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2D knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 108, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818.", + "Mikhail Galkin, Etienne G. Denis, Jiapeng Wu, and William L. Hamilton. 2022. Nodepiece: Compositional and parameter-efficient representations of large knowledge graphs. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net.", + "Johannes Hoffart, Fabian M. Suchanek, Klaus Berberich, and Gerhard Weikum. 2013. YAGO2: A spatially and temporally enhanced knowledge base from wikipedia. Artif. Intell., 194:28-61.", + "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings.", + "Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N. Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick van Kleef, Soren Auer, and Christian Bizer. 2015. Dbpedia - A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195.", + "Junzhuo Li and Deyi Xiong. 2022. Kafsp: Knowledge-aware fuzzy semantic parsing for conversational question answering over a large-scale knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 461-473.", + "Qika Lin, Jun Liu, Fangzhi Xu, Yudai Pan, Yifan Zhu, Lingling Zhang, and Tianzhe Zhao. 2022. Incorporating context graph with logical reasoning for inductive relation prediction. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 893-903. ACM.", + "Farzaneh Mahdisoltani, Joanna Biega, and Fabian M. Suchanek. 2015. YAGO3: A knowledge base from multilingual wikimedia. In CIDR 2015, Seventh Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, Asilomar, CA, USA, January 4-7, 2015, Online Proceedings.", + "Sijie Mai, Shuangjia Zheng, Yuedong Yang, and Haifeng Hu. 2021. Communicative message passing for inductive relation reasoning. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 4294-4302. AAAI Press.", + "Christian Meilicke, Manuel Fink, Yanjie Wang, Daniel Ruffinelli, Rainer Gemulla, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2018. Fine-grained evaluation of rule- and" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14049", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "embedding-based systems for knowledge graph completion. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2018 - 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8-12, 2018, Proceedings, Part I, volume 11136 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 3-20. Springer.", + "Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4710-4723.", + "Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. DRUM: end-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 15321-15331.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. RotatE: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019.", + "Komal K. Teru, Etienne G. Denis, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9448-9457. PMLR.", + "Kristina Toutanova, Danqi Chen, Patrick Pantel, Hoifung Poon, Pallavi Choudhury, and Michael Gamon. 2015. Representing text for joint embedding of text and knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1499-1509.", + "Shikhar Vashisht, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020.", + "Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wiki-data: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM, 57(10):78-85.", + "Junkang Wu, Wentao Shi, Xuezhi Cao, Jiawei Chen, Wenqiang Lei, Fuzheng Zhang, Wei Wu, and Xiangnan He. 2021. DisenKGAT: Knowledge graph embedding with disentangled graph attention network. In in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2021, Virtual Event, Queensland, Australia, November 1 - 5, 2021, pages 2140-2149. ACM." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Huiru Xiao, Xin Liu, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Y. Wong, and Simon See. 2022. Complex hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings with fast fourier transform. CoRR, abs/2211.03635.", + "Zhiwen Xie, Guangyou Zhou, Jin Liu, and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2020. ReInceptionE: Relation-aware inception network with joint local-global structural information for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5929-5939.", + "Chenyan Xiong, Russell Power, and Jamie Callan. 2017a. Explicit semantic ranking for academic search via knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 1271-1279. ACM.", + "Wenhan Xiong, Thien Hoang, and William Yang Wang. 2017b. Deeppath: A reinforcement learning method for knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 564-573. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings.", + "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2319-2328.", + "Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ningyu Zhang, Qianghuai Jia, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hongbin Ye, Hui Chen, Huaixiao Tou, Gang Huang, Zhao Wang, Nengwei Hua, and Huajun Chen. 2021. AliCG: Fine-grained and evolvable conceptual graph construction for semantic search at alibaba. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 3895-3905. ACM.", + "Yongqi Zhang, Zhanke Zhou, Quanming Yao, and Yong Li. 2022. KGTuner: Efficient hyper-parameter search for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14050", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2715-2735.", + "Shuangjia Zheng, Sijie Mai, Ya Sun, Haifeng Hu, and Yuedong Yang. 2021. Subgraph-aware few-shot inductive link prediction via meta-learning. CoRR, abs/2108.00954." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14051", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 6 Limitations", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 310, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 349, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 1", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 230, + 221, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 299, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.1", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 218, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 346, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.1", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 363, + 235, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 390, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 407, + 349, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.1", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 498, + 235, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 524, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 573, + 349, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 599, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 632, + 349, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 657, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix A. Statistic of Datasets", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 740, + 394, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 206, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.6", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 846, + 235, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 877, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14052", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.2", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 117, + 236, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 142, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4.1", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 192, + 236, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 218, + 882, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 267, + 349, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 882, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 374, + 248, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 399, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 449, + 248, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 475, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 524, + 248, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 549, + 873, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 567, + 248, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 592, + 880, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 626, + 248, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14053", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_model.json b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..927f39176600aa917eac83c847ac846436e8bc14 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2547 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.083, + 0.873, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.13, + 0.833, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiwen Xie\\(^{1}\\), Yi Zhang\\(^{2}\\), Jin Liu\\(^{1*}\\), Guangyou Zhou\\(^{2*}\\), Jimmy Xiangji Huang\\(^{3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.303, + 0.149, + 0.7, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)School of Computer Science, Wuhan University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.242, + 0.166, + 0.762, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)School of Computer Science, Central China Normal University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.182, + 0.841, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Information Retrieval and Knowledge Management Research Lab, York University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.266, + 0.2, + 0.739, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "xiezhiwen@whu.edu.cn, yizhang@mails.ccnu.edu.cn," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.216, + 0.79, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "jinliu@whu.edu.cn, gyzhou@mail.ccnu.edu.cn, jhuang@yorku.ca" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relation prediction on knowledge graphs (KGs) attempts to infer the missing links between entities. Most previous studies are limited to the transductive setting where all entities must be seen during the training, making them unable to perform reasoning on emerging entities. Recently, the inductive setting is proposed to handle the entities in the test phase to be unseen during training. However, it suffers from the inefficient reasoning under the enclosing subgraph extraction issue and the lack of effective entity-independent feature modeling. To this end, we propose a novel Query Adaptive Anchor Representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we extract one opening subgraph and perform reasoning by one time for all candidate triples, which is more efficient when the number of candidate triples is large. Second, we define some query adaptive anchors which are independent on any specific entity. Based on these anchors, we take advantage of the transferable entity-independent features (relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) that can be used to produce entity embeddings for emerging unseen entities. Such entity-independent features is modeled by a query-aware graph attention network on the opening subgraph. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed QAAR outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in inductive relation prediction task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.73, + 0.26, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.754, + 0.49, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge graphs (KGs) store a large amount of facts regarding the real-world knowledge in the form of \\((h,r,t)\\), where \\(h, t\\) are head and tail entities and \\(r\\) is the relation between \\(h\\) and \\(t\\). They have played important roles in various downstream applications, including but not limited to question answering (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Li and Xiong, 2022), semantic search (Xiong et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2021) and many more. Nowadays many" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "large-scale KGs such as Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008), Dbpedia (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yago (Hoffart et al., 2013; Mahdisoltani et al., 2015) and Wikidata (Vrandecic and Krötzsch, 2014) have been constructed, but they still suffer from an incompleteness problem. To make up such limitation, relation prediction or knowledge graph embedding (KGE) has been proposed to infer the missing links in KGs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.402, + 0.885, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The conventional relation prediction models, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), TuckER (Balazevic et al., 2019), CompGCN (Vashishth et al., 2020), KBGAT (Nathani et al., 2019), ReInceptionE (Xie et al., 2020), DisenKGAT (Wu et al., 2021), PairRE (Chao et al., 2021), FFTAttH (Xiao et al., 2022), KGTuner (Zhang et al., 2022) have successively achieved satisfactory performance on relation prediction. They all follow a general strategy to represent the entities in the low-dimension vector space by using the KG structure and neighborhood information in the transductive setting, where all entities must be seen in the training phase. However, many KGs are evolving and new entities are emerging every day in the real world. These conventional relation prediction models in the transductive settings cannot effectively learn the embeddings for the new entities unless re-training the whole KGs from scratch. Recently, researchers have focused on relation prediction in the inductive setting, where new entities are emerging while testing. Compared to relation prediction in the transductive setting, the inductive setting is more challenging since the missing links can be inferred in KGs with unseen entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Currently, models on relation predictions in the inductive setting can be divided into two categories (Mai et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2022): rule-based methods and GCN-based methods. Rule-based methods (e.g., NeuralLP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.296, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.523, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14041" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.776, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 14041-14053" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.083, + 0.429, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.221, + 0.285, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.434, + 0.081, + 0.561, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.495, + 0.222, + 0.512, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.081, + 0.703, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.63, + 0.222, + 0.646, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.081, + 0.842, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.765, + 0.222, + 0.781, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.243, + 0.885, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An example of node labeling of previous inductive relation prediction methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022). The subfigure (a) is a subgraph surrounding entity Barack Obama and the query is (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are extracted enclosing subgraphs for candidate triples (Barack Obama, Nationality, U.S.), (Barack Obama, Nationality, Chicago) and (Barack Obama, Nationality, Kenya). And the nodes in (b), (c), (d) are labeled by using the distances between each node and head (tail) node in corresponding candidate triple, which is widely used in previous works." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.368, + 0.49, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2018) etc.) are able to handle the relation prediction with new/unseen entities since the rules are independent of any specific entities, their performance is usually insufficient due to the limitation of the flexible issue. GCN-based methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), require to extract a \\( k \\)-hop enclosing subgraph1 for every candidate triple \\( (h, r, t) \\) and then perform reasoning on all these candidate subgraphs. However, these methods suffer from the inefficient issue since the number of candidate triples is usually large. Figure 1 shows an example of the query (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are enclosing subgraphs extracted from graph (a) for three different candidate triples. Though the subgraphs (b) and (c) have the same structure, these previous methods have to perform reasoning two times, which will spend more reasoning time. Moreover, previous methods only use the distance as features and ignore rich local structure information in subgraphs, which leads to sub-optimal performance. As shown in Figure 1, the entity Honolulu in subfigure (b) is labeled as \"(1,1)\", which is the same with the entity Malik Obama in subfigure (d). This leads to similar node labeling for the nodes in (b) and (d), although these two subgraphs are totally different. Using these weak node features will result in poor performance since it is hard for the model to distinguish different subgraphs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.885, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the above analysis, we are motivated to address two research issues: (1) How to develop a model to perform inductive reasoning for all candidate triples with only one subgraph and one-time node labeling and reasoning. (2) How to extract adequate transferable entity-independent anchor\\(^2\\) knowledge to produce more expressive entity embeddings for emerging entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.498, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these issues, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model. Specifically, for a given query \\((h,r,?)\\) where \\(?\\) denotes a missing entity to be inferred, instead of extracting an enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple, we first extract a \\(k\\)-hop opening subgraph surrounding the query entity \\(h\\) for all candidates. This enables our model to perform reasoning by one time to rank all candidates, which is more efficient when the number of candidates is large. Then, we propose a dynamic anchor-based node labeling method to label each node with rich entity-independent information. Specifically, we construct three kinds of anchors for each query \\((h,r,?)\\), including relation types, the center node of the subgraph and the one-hop neighbors of the center node which is adaptively selected according to the query entity \\(h\\). Based on these anchors, we can label each node in the subgraph with three kinds of features, namely relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. These rich node features en" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.845, + 0.883, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2The anchors in this paper denote the transferable meta knowledge, which is independent of any specific entities and can be transferred to new graphs with unseen entities." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.882, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Unlike the enclosing subgraph, the \\(k\\) -hop opening subgraph of entity \\(h\\) contains all neighboring nodes with the maximum \\(k\\) -hop distance." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.845, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Following (Teru et al., 2020), a \\(k\\)-hop enclosing subgraph between nodes \\(h\\) and \\(t\\) contains all nodes that appear on the graph from \\(h\\) to \\(t\\) with the maximum \\(k\\)-hop distance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14042" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.084, + 0.885, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.311, + 0.273, + 0.686, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overview of the proposed QAAR model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.314, + 0.491, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "able our model to learn expressive representation for subgraphs. Finally, a query-aware graph attention neural network is proposed to perform reasoning on subgraphs by gathering query-related neighborhood features. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that our proposed QAAR significantly outperforms previous methods, and achieves the new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance for inductive relation prediction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.472, + 0.276, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Our Approach" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.49, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2 illustrates the overview of the proposed QAAR, which consists of four modules: (1) opening subgraph extraction; (2) query adaptive anchor construction; (3) anchor-based node labeling; and (4) query-aware reasoning. Next, we will describe each module in details." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.608, + 0.401, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Opening Subgraph Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-hop subgraphs can provide rich evidence to infer missing links due to the implicit correlation between different relations. For example, the relation \\((A, \\text{farther}, B)\\) can be inferred according to the two-hop facts \\((A, \\text{mother}, C)\\) and \\((C, \\text{husband}, B)\\). Thus, we first extract a multi-hop subgraph for inductive relation prediction. Different from GraIL (Teru et al., 2020) and its extensions (e.g., TACT (Chen et al., 2021), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021) and ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022)), which extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple \\((h, r, t)\\), we attempt to extract one opening subgraph for all candidate entities so that we can score all candidates with one-time reasoning on the subgraph. For a given query \\((h, r, ?)\\), we first construct a \\(k\\)-hop opening subgraph for the query entity \\(h\\) by extracting the neighboring nodes surrounding \\(h\\) with maximum \\(k\\)-hop distance. We" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.314, + 0.882, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "denote the \\(k\\)-hop opening subgraph of \\(h\\) as \\(\\mathcal{G}_k(h)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.344, + 0.854, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Query Adaptive Anchor Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.885, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To learn transferable entity-independent node features in a given subgraph, we first design some anchors which can be shared by different subgraphs. Ideally, the anchors should be independent of any specific entities and have the ability to express local structure information of the given subgraph. To this end, we introduce the following three kinds of anchors:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.497, + 0.884, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relation types. Intuitively, the relation types are common information for subgraphs with different entities. Even on a new KG with unseen entities, the same set of relation types can be used to express the relations among entities. The set of relation types are denoted as \\( R = \\{r_1, r_2, \\dots, r_{|R|}\\} \\), where \\( r_i \\) is a relation in the relation set and \\( |R| \\) is the number of relations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.627, + 0.884, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Center node. In our paper, each subgraph is extracted surrounding the given query entity \\( h \\) which can be considered as the center node of the subgraph and each opening subgraph has a unique center node. We use the center node as an anchor and denote it as \\( node_0^4 \\). With the center node, the model can be aware of where is the start node to perform reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.756, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One-hop neighbors of center node. Besides, we also define the one-hop neighbors of the center node as anchors to better learn the local structure of subgraphs. For inductive relation prediction, we cannot directly use entity-specific embeddings to represent these one-hop neighbors. To address this problem, we leverage relationship between each" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.881, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that \\( h \\) denotes a specific query entity in KG, while node \\( _0 \\) is a special symbol to represent the center node of a subgraph, which is transferable to any subgraph." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14043" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The center node of the center node \\( h \\) is a neighboring node and the center node to denote the neighbors. Specifically, for a neighboring entity \\( t \\) which is connected to the center node \\( h \\) with a triple \\( (h, r_i, t) \\), the neighboring entity \\( t \\) can be denoted as \\( r_i^c \\) which means a node connected to the center node with relation \\( r_i \\). Take the triple (Barack Obama, PlaceOfBirth, Honolulu) as an example, the entity Honolulu can be denoted as \"the PlaceofBirth of Barack Obama\". Thus, all neighboring nodes of the center node can be represented by combining the relation and center node, which can yield a set of one-hop neighborhood anchors \\( D = \\{r_i^c | (h, r_i, t) \\in \\mathcal{T}_k(h)\\} \\), where \\( \\mathcal{T}_k(h) \\) denotes the set of triples in \\( \\mathcal{G}_k(h) \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.311, + 0.49, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to the above definition, we can obtain a set of anchor relations \\( R \\) and a set of anchor nodes \\( \\text{Anc} = \\{ \\text{node}_0 \\} \\cup D \\). These anchor relations and the nodes are independent on any specific entity, which can be acted as the transferred metaknowledge to bridge the gap between the training KG and the test KG." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.435, + 0.391, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Anchor-based Node Labeling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.457, + 0.489, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this subsection, we describe how to label each node in the opening subgraph using the anchors \\( R \\) and \\( Anc \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.489, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relation-aware features. Given a node \\( n \\) in the subgraph \\( \\mathcal{G}_k(h) \\), we extract the node's neighboring relations denoted as \\( \\mathcal{R}(n) \\). We can capture some important type information about the node from these neighboring relations. For example, the tail entities of relation PlaceOfBirth are entities with a place type. Therefore, we use these relations to learn embedding for node \\( n \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.245, + 0.647, + 0.488, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} = \\sum_ {r \\in \\mathcal {R} (n)} \\mathbf {r} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.694, + 0.438, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{r}\\) is the embedding for the relation \\(r\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.711, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Structure-aware features. Only using the relation information cannot adequately express the structure of a given subgraph. In this paper, we propose a structure-aware labeling method to enrich the node features with local structure information. In a given subgraph, the center node and its one-hop neighboring nodes are viewed as anchor nodes \\(Anc\\) as defined in Section 2.2. Thus, we can leverage neighboring relationship between each node with these anchor nodes to learn local structure of each node in the subgraph. Formally, let \\(\\mathcal{A}_j(n) = \\{a_i|a_i\\in \\mathcal{N}_j(n)\\bigcap Anc\\}\\) be the \\(j\\)-th hop neighboring anchor nodes of node \\(n\\), where" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathcal{N}_j(n)\\) denotes the \\(j\\) -th hop neighbors of node \\(n\\) The \\(j\\) -th hop structure feature of node \\(n\\) can be denoted as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.631, + 0.131, + 0.882, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {j} = \\sum_ {a _ {i} \\in \\mathcal {A} _ {j} (n)} \\mathbf {a} _ {i} \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.171, + 0.884, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{a}_i\\) is the embedding of anchor node \\(a_i\\). Note that by gathering neighboring anchor nodes from different hops, we can obtain multi-hop structure-aware features \\(\\{\\mathbf{v}_n^0,\\mathbf{v}_n^1,\\dots ,\\mathbf{v}_n^J\\}\\), where \\(J\\) is the maximum hop of the structure-aware features5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.252, + 0.884, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Distance features. The distance can reveal the degree of correlation between each node and the center node. Therefore, we also leverage distance features to enrich the representation of each node. Specifically, we visit the neighboring nodes from different hops of the center node and obtain the shortest distance between each node and the center node. Let \\( d_{n} \\) denote the distance between node \\( n \\) and the center node, the embedding of distance feature is denoted as \\( \\mathbf{v}_{n}^{d} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.413, + 0.882, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, the relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features are combined to learn the initial embedding of each node \\( n \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.47, + 0.882, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {0} = \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {0} + \\dots + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {J} + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {d} \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.512, + 0.747, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.4 Query-aware Reasoning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.533, + 0.884, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the above sections, we have described how to label the nodes for a extracted opening subgraph with relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. Then, we can perform reasoning on the opening subgraph. In this paper, we use a query-aware graph attention neural network (GAT) to propagate neighborhood information in the opening subgraph. Given a query \\((h,r,\\ref{eq:1})\\) and a \\(k\\)-hop subgraph \\(\\mathcal{G}_k(h)\\), we can aggregate the neighborhood features for each node \\(n\\) in subgraph \\(\\mathcal{G}_k(h)\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.704, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {(r, p) \\in \\mathcal {N} (n)} \\alpha_ {p} ^ {l} [ \\mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} | | \\mathbf {r} _ {p} ] \\mathbf {W} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} ^ {l} \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.75, + 0.884, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathcal{N}(n) = \\{(r_p,p)|(n,r_p,p)\\in \\mathcal{T}_k(h)\\}\\) is the set of neighbors of node \\(n\\), \\(\\mathcal{T}_k(h)\\) is the set of triples in \\(\\mathcal{G}_k(h)\\). \\(\\mathbf{W}^l\\) and \\(\\mathbf{b}^l\\) are trainable parameters in the \\(l\\)-th GAT layer, \\(\\alpha_{p}^{l}\\) is the attention weight for the neighbor \\((r_p,p)\\) which is computed as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.841, + 0.882, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\alpha_ {p} ^ {l} = \\sigma \\left(\\mathbf {r} _ {a} ^ {T} \\left(\\left[ \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {r} _ {p} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} \\right] \\mathbf {W} _ {a} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} _ {a} ^ {l}\\right)\\right) \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.869, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5Note that \\(k\\) in \\(\\mathcal{G}_k(h)\\) denotes the maximum hop of the opening subgraph surrounding the center node \\(h\\), while \\(J\\) denotes the maximum hop of structure-aware neighboring anchors for each node \\(n\\) in the subgraph \\(\\mathcal{G}_k(h)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14044" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.177, + 0.081, + 0.825, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
#Rel#Ent#Tri#Rel#Ent#Tri#R#Ent#Tri
V1train9274666781832000522614109155540
test9922199114615002404142251034
V2train1069541896820330001208588256410109
test1029234863176200050927949375521
V3train111207832150218400022394142464720117
test11508474701873000913712249219668
V3train9386198422225000339167720929289
test97208151572043500145546132948520
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.258, + 0.884, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Statistics of the inductive datasets. \"#Rel\" denotes the number of relations, \"#Ent\" denotes the number of entities, \"#Tri\" denotes the number of triples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.312, + 0.489, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{W}_a^l\\) and \\(\\mathbf{b}_a^l\\) are the trainable parameters, \\(\\mathbf{r}_a\\) is the attention embedding of the query relation \\(r\\), \\(\\sigma\\) is the sigmoid activation function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.361, + 0.489, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To alleviate the vanishing gradient problem, we use a gated layer to integrate the node features as well as its neighborhood features." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.183, + 0.42, + 0.488, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l + 1} = g \\times \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} + (1 - g) \\times \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} \\qquad (6)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.452, + 0.489, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(g\\) is the gate to control the weight between the \\(l\\)-th layer node feature \\(\\mathbf{e}_n^l\\) and the neighborhood feature \\(\\mathbf{e}_n^r\\), which is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.511, + 0.488, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ng = \\sigma ([ \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} | | \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} ] \\mathbf {W} _ {g} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} _ {g} ^ {l}) \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.542, + 0.488, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{W}_g^l\\) and \\(\\mathbf{b}_g^l\\) are learnable parameters of the gate mechanism." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.576, + 0.489, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we stack query-aware GAT with \\(L\\) layers to propagate multi-hop neighborhood features and obtain the final node embeddings by concatenating representations of all layers, namely \\(\\mathbf{e}_n = [\\mathbf{e}_n^0 ||\\mathbf{e}_n^1 ||\\dots ||\\mathbf{e}_n^L ]\\). Then, an average-pooling layer is applied to obtain the representation of the subgraph \\(\\mathcal{G}_k(h)\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.23, + 0.699, + 0.488, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {e} _ {\\mathcal {G}} = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {E} _ {k} |} \\sum_ {n \\in \\mathcal {E} _ {k}} \\mathbf {e} _ {n} \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.749, + 0.489, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sequentially, we can compute the embedding for the given query \\((h,r,\\ref{eq:1})\\) by taking into account the subgraph embedding \\(\\mathbf{e}_{\\mathcal{G}}\\), the query entity embedding \\(\\mathbf{e}_h\\) and the query relation embedding \\(\\mathbf{r}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.826, + 0.488, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {e} _ {\\text {q u e r y}} = \\left[ \\mathbf {e} _ {\\mathcal {G}} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {e} _ {h} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {r} \\right] \\mathbf {W} _ {q} + \\mathbf {b} _ {q} \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.488, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{W}_q\\) and \\(\\mathbf{b}_q\\) are the trainable parameters of the query embedding layer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.488, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, the score for a candidate answer entity \\( t \\) can be obtained using the inner product of the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.313, + 0.882, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "query embedding \\(\\mathbf{e}_{query}\\) and the candidate answer entity embedding \\(\\mathbf{e}_t\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.604, + 0.355, + 0.884, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf (h, r, t) = \\sigma (\\mathbf {e} _ {\\text {q u e r y}} ^ {T} \\mathbf {e} _ {t}) \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.385, + 0.884, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that all the candidate answer entities are in the same subgraph \\( \\mathcal{G}_k(h) \\). Therefore, we can compute the scores for all candidates by performing reasoning on the subgraph \\( \\mathcal{G}_k(h) \\) by one time. This is different from previous methods which need extract and process a specific subgraph for every candidate triple." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.499, + 0.884, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following (Teru et al., 2020), we randomly sample a negative answer entity \\( t' \\) for each query \\( (h, r, ?) \\) and correct answer \\( t \\). The goal is to predict a higher score for each positive answer entity and lower score for the negative answer entity. Thus, we use the following cross entropy loss function to train the model:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.62, + 0.884, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\sum_ {(h, r, t) \\in \\mathcal {G} (h)} \\log \\left(f \\left(h, r, t ^ {\\prime}\\right)\\right) - \\log \\left(f (h, r, t)\\right) \\tag {11}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.669, + 0.884, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the query \\((?,r,t)\\), which needs to predict the missing head entity, we use a inverse form \\((t,r^{-1},?)\\) to convert it into a query with a missing tail entity." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.745, + 0.657, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.77, + 0.797, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Datasets and Evaluate Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate the inductive relation prediction performance of our QAAR, we conduct extensive experiments on three widely used datasets which are proposed in GraIL (Teru et al., 2020). These inductive datasets are extracted from WN18RR (Dettmers et al., 2018), FB15k-237(Toutanova et al., 2015) and NELL-995 (Xiong et al., 2017b). Each inductive dataset consists of train and test KGs and these" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14045" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.082, + 0.817, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.9452.9055.8855.16
DRUM†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.7352.9055.8855.10
RuleN†80.8578.2353.3971.5971.0149.7677.8287.6985.6075.21
Meta-iKG-----66.9674.0871.8972.2871.30
MorsE84.1481.5070.9279.6179.0483.1795.6795.6995.8992.61
GraIL†82.4578.6858.4373.4173.2464.1581.8082.8389.2979.51
CoMPILE†83.6079.8260.6975.4974.9067.6482.9884.6787.4480.68
TACT†84.0481.6367.9776.5677.5565.7683.5685.2088.6980.80
ConGLR†85.6492.9370.7492.9085.5568.2985.9888.6189.3182.93
NodePiece83.0088.6078.5080.7082.7087.3093.9094.4094.9092.35
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.262, + 0.885, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. \\(\\dagger\\) means the results are taken from (Lin et al., 2022). Other results are taken from their original papers. \"Avg.\" denotes the average values of the four versions. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.328, + 0.486, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†40.7878.7382.7180.5870.70
DRUM†19.4278.5582.7180.5865.31
RuleN†53.5081.7577.2661.3568.46
Meta-iKG64.2077.9177.4173.1273.16
MorsE65.2080.7087.6753.4471.75
GraIL†59.5093.2591.4173.1979.33
CoMPILE†58.3893.8792.7775.1980.05
TACT*79.8088.9194.0273.7884.12
ConGLR*81.0794.9294.3681.6187.99
NodePiece89.0090.1093.6089.3090.50
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.489, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.577, + 0.489, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "two KGs have no overlapping entities. And there are four versions with different sizes for each inductive dataset. The details of these datasets are shown in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.642, + 0.489, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following the prior work (Teru et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022), we use hits@10 as the evaluation metric and compute hits@10 by ranking each test triple against 50 negative triples and check whether the positive triple is ranked in top 10. We run each experiment five times and report the mean results." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.752, + 0.347, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implement our model using Pytorch. We optimize our model using Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015). We choose the optimal hyperparameters via grid search. We select the batch size from \\(\\{4,8,16,32\\}\\), the learning rate from \\(\\{0.0005,0.001,0.002\\}\\), weight decay from \\(\\{1e-2,1e-3,1e-4\\}\\), dropout rate from \\(\\{0.1,0.2,0.3\\}\\), the number of GAT layers from \\(\\{1,2,3\\}\\), the subgraph size \\(k\\) from \\(\\{2,3,4,5\\}\\), the maximum depth \\(J\\) of structure" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.331, + 0.885, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "aware features from \\(\\{1,2,3\\}\\), the dimension size of output entity embedding from \\(\\{30,50,80\\}\\). The best hyper-parameters are selected according to the hits@10 on validation set. Finally, the learning rate is set to 0.001, the batch size is set to 16, the weight decay is set to 1e-3, the dropout rate is set to 0.1, the number of GAT layers is set to 2, and the subgraph size \\(k\\) is set to 4, the maximum depth of structure features is set to \\(J = 2\\), the dimension size of output entity embedding is set to 80." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.506, + 0.63, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.885, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare our QAAR with the following rule-based models: Neural-LP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al., 2018), and GCN-based models: Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), MorsE (Chen et al., 2022), GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022) and NodePiece (Galkin et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.672, + 0.727, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 and Table 3 show the experimental results on the four versions from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 under the evaluation metric of hits@10. From Table 2 and Table 3, we can have two interesting findings: (1) The GCN-based methods, which leverage GCNs to aggregate and propagate neighborhood information, performs better than rule-based methods. This indicates that rule-based methods are insufficient to obtain good performance for inductive relation prediction due to the brittleness of logical rules. Instead, GCN-based methods are more robust to capture complex structure patterns in KGs. (2) Our QAAR achieves better performance than most of SOTA GCN-based" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14046" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.174, + 0.082, + 0.825, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
QAAR w/o D87.2381.7486.4486.9185.5885.8590.7993.2994.1891.03
Δ-1.59-5.13-1.74-2.24-2.67-4.63-5.02-2.58-2.03-3.56
QAAR w/o R86.1786.1686.7789.4387.1384.6392.4693.6495.6491.59
Δ-2.65-0.71-1.41+0.28-1.12-5.85-3.35-2.23-0.57-3.00
QAAR w/o S85.6379.5986.6188.1785.0087.3194.3594.2195.2992.79
Δ-3.19-7.28-1.57-0.98-3.25-3.17-1.46-1.66-0.92-1.80
QAAR w/o A86.9681.5187.7688.3886.1584.3994.9794.9195.3692.41
Δ-1.86-5.36-0.42-0.77-2.10-6.09-0.84-0.96-0.85-2.18
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.23, + 0.883, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. \\(\\Delta\\) denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model. \\(\\Delta\\) denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.295, + 0.483, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
QAAR w/o D87.0090.3390.614.8188.19
Δ-2.50-5.99-3.95-6.34-4.69
QAAR w/o R85.5093.2792.8389.1990.20
Δ-4.00-3.05-1.73-1.96-2.68
QAAR w/o S82.5092.8592.5890.2888.55
Δ-7.00-3.47-1.98-0.87-3.33
QAAR w/o A86.0091.3892.0990.1589.91
Δ-3.50-4.94-2.47-1.00-2.97
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.437, + 0.487, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.494, + 0.49, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "methods in term of hits@10 (e.g., our model achieves the best performance on 10 out of 12 versions of the inductive datasets). On the average hits@10 metrics of these three datasets, our QAAR outperforms other SOTA models. Compared to previous SOTA method ConGLR, our QAAR can achieve \\(2.7\\%\\), \\(11.63\\%\\) and \\(4.89\\%\\) improvements on the average hits@10 metrics of WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets respectively. And compared to the SOTA method NodePiece, our QAAR outperforms NodePiece by \\(5.55\\%\\), \\(2.24\\%\\) and \\(2.38\\%\\) margins on these three datasets. Compared with previous SOTA GCN-based methods, such as GraIL, TACT, CoMPILE, ConGLR and NodePiece, the proposed QAAR is able to capture richer transferable entity-independent features (e.g., relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) to learn the inductive embeddings for the nodes in a subgraph. The experimental results demonstrate that our QAAR is superior to current SOTA models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.848, + 0.28, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this subsection, we perform an ablation study to investigate how each module in QAAR affects the performance. Specifically, for the node label" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.298, + 0.885, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing, we use relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features to label each node. To study the contributions of these labeling strategies, we construct three variant models: \"QAAR w/o R\" denotes the model removing relation-aware features from QAAR model, \"QAAR w/o S\" denotes the model without using structure-aware features, and \"QAAR w/o D\" denotes the model without using distance features. Moreover, we also investigate the effect of query-aware graph attention layers by replacing it with GCN layers and obtain a variant model \"QAAR w/o A\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.501, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4 and Table 5 show the experimental results of ablation study on the inductive datasets regarding the evaluation metric of hits@10. From the results, we can see that the performances of all variant models have decreased to some extent. This demonstrates all modules in QAAR play important roles for the performance improvement. Concretely, different components in QAAR have different effect on these inductive datasets. For WN18RR dataset, the structure-aware and distance features have more positive impact on the performance, while the relation-aware features have less positive impact and even slightly hurt the performance on v4 of WN18RR. This is because the relations in WN18RR express little entity type information. Take the most frequent relation \"hypernym\" in WN18RR as an example, we cannot infer the entity type for it. Instead, for FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets, the relations express more useful entity type information, which can help to improve the performance. Take the relation \"Place-of-Birth\" in FB15k-237 as an example, we can infer that the head entity of this relation is a person and the tail entity is a place. On average, all three types of features can contribute to the improvements of the performance. Moreover, the query-aware graph" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14047" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.483, + 0.157 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
#Neg.WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
GraILQAARGraILQAARGraILQAAR
2035.825.78147.6611.6363.8715.85
5052.385.92244.7812.0879.1915.98
8066.675.98324.3312.2891.5516.21
12081.526.23427.2912.46107.0216.73
15093.076.25498.3212.53136.7316.85
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.167, + 0.489, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995. \"#Neg.\" denotes the number of negative candidates to be ranked. The reasoning times are measured in seconds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.267, + 0.49, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "attention reasoning is also beneficial to relation prediction (QAAR vs. \"QAAR w/o A\"), which indicates that the query-aware graph attention layers can aggregate more relevant neighborhood information during reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.365, + 0.31, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.6 Efficiency Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we investigate the reasoning efficiency regarding the enclosing subgraph extraction vs. the opening subgraph extraction. We note that most previous inductive relation prediction models, such as CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), are all based on the enclosing subgraph extraction on the basis of GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), and take more time to perform reasoning since they consider more additional mechanisms. Therefore, we choose GraIL as the representative baseline. Table 6 shows the reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL995. It can be seen that our QAAR can spend less reasoning time than the GraIL model on these three datasets. Specifically, when the number of negative candidates is 50, the reasoning time of QAAR is about 9x faster than GraIL on WN18RR, 20x faster on FB15k-237, 5x faster on NELL-995. We can also find that the reasoning time of GraIL will dramatically increases when the number of negative candidates increases. Different from GraIL, the reasoning time of our QAAR remains at a stable level for different number of candidates. The reason is that our QAAR is able to rank all candidates in one opening subgraph with one-time reasoning, while GraIL will extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate and perform multiple reasoning on all these subgraphs. These empirical results verify the claim that our QAAR can perform more efficient reasoning than previous methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.642, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.114, + 0.886, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we develop a model to rank all candidate triples in one opening subgraph. Second, we design three types of query adaptive anchors for subgraphs and extract three kinds of entity-independent features including relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features, which are useful for inductive relation prediction. Finally, we use a query-aware graph attention model to perform inductive reasoning on subgraphs. The experimental results on 12 versions of inductive relation prediction datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed QAAR model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.371, + 0.615, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.401, + 0.885, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although our QAAR achieves better performance on inductive relation prediction, it still suffers from some limitations. First, for a give query we extract a \\( k \\)-hop subgraph without using any sampling method, which will require large GPU memory when the extracted subgraph is large. Second, our QAAR does not leverage logical rules to enhance the performance which has shown useful in previous methods (Lin et al., 2022). We believe that our method can be further improved by incorporating logical rules. We will leave these opening issues in the future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.611, + 0.682, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.64, + 0.886, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61972290 and 61972173, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. CCNU22QN015), and Wuhan Knowledge Innovation Project (No. 2022010801010278). This work was also supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, an NSERC CREATE award in ADERSIM6, the York Research Chairs (YRC) program and an ORFRE (Ontario Research Fund-Research Excellence) award in BRAIN Alliance7. We thank anonymous reviewers for their thorough review comments on this paper." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.892, + 0.717, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6http://www.yorku.ca/adersim" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.674, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7http://brainalliance.ca" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.892, + 0.717, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14048" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.109, + 0.49, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivana Balazevic, Carl Allen, and Timothy M. Hospedales. 2019. Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5184-5193." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.226, + 0.49, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt D. Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 10-12, 2008, pages 1247-1250. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.331, + 0.49, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 2787-2795." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.448, + 0.49, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linlin Chao, Jianshan He, Taifeng Wang, and Wei Chu. 2021. *PairRE: Knowledge graph embeddings via paired relation vectors*. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4360-4369. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.578, + 0.49, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiajun Chen, Huarui He, Feng Wu, and Jie Wang. 2021. Topology-aware correlations between relations for inductive link prediction in knowledge graphs. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6271-6278. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.722, + 0.49, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingyang Chen, Wen Zhang, Yushan Zhu, Hongting Zhou, Zonggang Yuan, Changliang Xu, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Meta-knowledge transfer for inductive knowledge graph embedding. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 927-937. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2D knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.109, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.136, + 0.885, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mikhail Galkin, Etienne G. Denis, Jiapeng Wu, and William L. Hamilton. 2022. Nodepiece: Compositional and parameter-efficient representations of large knowledge graphs. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.226, + 0.884, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Johannes Hoffart, Fabian M. Suchanek, Klaus Berberich, and Gerhard Weikum. 2013. YAGO2: A spatially and temporally enhanced knowledge base from wikipedia. Artif. Intell., 194:28-61." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.289, + 0.884, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.366, + 0.884, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N. Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick van Kleef, Soren Auer, and Christian Bizer. 2015. Dbpedia - A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.455, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junzhuo Li and Deyi Xiong. 2022. Kafsp: Knowledge-aware fuzzy semantic parsing for conversational question answering over a large-scale knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 461-473." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.558, + 0.884, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qika Lin, Jun Liu, Fangzhi Xu, Yudai Pan, Yifan Zhu, Lingling Zhang, and Tianzhe Zhao. 2022. Incorporating context graph with logical reasoning for inductive relation prediction. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 893-903. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.66, + 0.884, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Farzaneh Mahdisoltani, Joanna Biega, and Fabian M. Suchanek. 2015. YAGO3: A knowledge base from multilingual wikimedia. In CIDR 2015, Seventh Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, Asilomar, CA, USA, January 4-7, 2015, Online Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.75, + 0.884, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sijie Mai, Shuangjia Zheng, Yuedong Yang, and Haifeng Hu. 2021. Communicative message passing for inductive relation reasoning. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 4294-4302. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.878, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christian Meilicke, Manuel Fink, Yanjie Wang, Daniel Ruffinelli, Rainer Gemulla, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2018. Fine-grained evaluation of rule- and" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14049" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "embedding-based systems for knowledge graph completion. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2018 - 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8-12, 2018, Proceedings, Part I, volume 11136 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 3-20. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.174, + 0.49, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4710-4723." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.49, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. DRUM: end-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 15321-15331." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.388, + 0.488, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. RotatE: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.463, + 0.49, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Komal K. Teru, Etienne G. Denis, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9448-9457. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.563, + 0.49, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kristina Toutanova, Danqi Chen, Patrick Pantel, Hoifung Poon, Pallavi Choudhury, and Michael Gamon. 2015. Representing text for joint embedding of text and knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1499-1509." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.664, + 0.49, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shikhar Vashisht, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.752, + 0.488, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wiki-data: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM, 57(10):78-85." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.49, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junkang Wu, Wentao Shi, Xuezhi Cao, Jiawei Chen, Wenqiang Lei, Fuzheng Zhang, Wei Wu, and Xiangnan He. 2021. DisenKGAT: Knowledge graph embedding with disentangled graph attention network. In in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2021, Virtual Event, Queensland, Australia, November 1 - 5, 2021, pages 2140-2149. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huiru Xiao, Xin Liu, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Y. Wong, and Simon See. 2022. Complex hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings with fast fourier transform. CoRR, abs/2211.03635." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.148, + 0.884, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiwen Xie, Guangyou Zhou, Jin Liu, and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2020. ReInceptionE: Relation-aware inception network with joint local-global structural information for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5929-5939." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.248, + 0.884, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenyan Xiong, Russell Power, and Jamie Callan. 2017a. Explicit semantic ranking for academic search via knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 1271-1279. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.336, + 0.884, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhan Xiong, Thien Hoang, and William Yang Wang. 2017b. Deeppath: A reinforcement learning method for knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 564-573. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.437, + 0.884, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.525, + 0.884, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2319-2328." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.612, + 0.884, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.738, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ningyu Zhang, Qianghuai Jia, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hongbin Ye, Hui Chen, Huaixiao Tou, Gang Huang, Zhao Wang, Nengwei Hua, and Huajun Chen. 2021. AliCG: Fine-grained and evolvable conceptual graph construction for semantic search at alibaba. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 3895-3905. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongqi Zhang, Zhanke Zhou, Quanming Yao, and Yong Li. 2022. KGTuner: Efficient hyper-parameter search for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14050" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2715-2735." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.136, + 0.49, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuangjia Zheng, Sijie Mai, Ya Sun, Haifeng Hu, and Yuedong Yang. 2021. Subgraph-aware few-shot inductive link prediction via meta-learning. CoRR, abs/2108.00954." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14051" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.145, + 0.312, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 6 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.171, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.188, + 0.351, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.696, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.231, + 0.223, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.257, + 0.669, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.274, + 0.233, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.3, + 0.489, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.219, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.347, + 0.53, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.365, + 0.236, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.408, + 0.351, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.433, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.499, + 0.236, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.574, + 0.351, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.633, + 0.351, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.658, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.741, + 0.396, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix A. Statistic of Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.788, + 0.207, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.847, + 0.236, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.6" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.878, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14052" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.118, + 0.237, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.884, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.193, + 0.237, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4.1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.219, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.268, + 0.351, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.883, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.375, + 0.249, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.45, + 0.249, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.476, + 0.884, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.525, + 0.25, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.875, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.568, + 0.249, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.881, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.627, + 0.249, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14053" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..045456b5eb5144963aac3100417c8ece79694ac4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/c5a83937-655e-490b-b048-9a9ecb713b9a_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:71ace97036e15a28618d8662414a048d5320dc76dea8cfc96d56fa21075721ff +size 1422364 diff --git a/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/full.md b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8318b50dee83afbdb7664f342263c29de3598bf --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@ +# Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction + +Zhiwen Xie $^{1}$ , Yi Zhang $^{2}$ , Jin Liu $^{1*}$ , Guangyou Zhou $^{2*}$ , Jimmy Xiangji Huang $^{3}$ + +$^{1}$ School of Computer Science, Wuhan University + +$^{2}$ School of Computer Science, Central China Normal University + +3Information Retrieval and Knowledge Management Research Lab, York University + +xiezhiwen@whu.edu.cn, yizhang@mails.ccnu.edu.cn, + +jinliu@whu.edu.cn, gyzhou@mail.ccnu.edu.cn, jhuang@yorku.ca + +# Abstract + +Relation prediction on knowledge graphs (KGs) attempts to infer the missing links between entities. Most previous studies are limited to the transductive setting where all entities must be seen during the training, making them unable to perform reasoning on emerging entities. Recently, the inductive setting is proposed to handle the entities in the test phase to be unseen during training. However, it suffers from the inefficient reasoning under the enclosing subgraph extraction issue and the lack of effective entity-independent feature modeling. To this end, we propose a novel Query Adaptive Anchor Representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we extract one opening subgraph and perform reasoning by one time for all candidate triples, which is more efficient when the number of candidate triples is large. Second, we define some query adaptive anchors which are independent on any specific entity. Based on these anchors, we take advantage of the transferable entity-independent features (relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) that can be used to produce entity embeddings for emerging unseen entities. Such entity-independent features is modeled by a query-aware graph attention network on the opening subgraph. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed QAAR outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in inductive relation prediction task. + +# 1 Introduction + +Knowledge graphs (KGs) store a large amount of facts regarding the real-world knowledge in the form of $(h,r,t)$ , where $h, t$ are head and tail entities and $r$ is the relation between $h$ and $t$ . They have played important roles in various downstream applications, including but not limited to question answering (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Li and Xiong, 2022), semantic search (Xiong et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2021) and many more. Nowadays many + +large-scale KGs such as Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008), Dbpedia (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yago (Hoffart et al., 2013; Mahdisoltani et al., 2015) and Wikidata (Vrandecic and Krötzsch, 2014) have been constructed, but they still suffer from an incompleteness problem. To make up such limitation, relation prediction or knowledge graph embedding (KGE) has been proposed to infer the missing links in KGs. + +The conventional relation prediction models, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), TuckER (Balazevic et al., 2019), CompGCN (Vashishth et al., 2020), KBGAT (Nathani et al., 2019), ReInceptionE (Xie et al., 2020), DisenKGAT (Wu et al., 2021), PairRE (Chao et al., 2021), FFTAttH (Xiao et al., 2022), KGTuner (Zhang et al., 2022) have successively achieved satisfactory performance on relation prediction. They all follow a general strategy to represent the entities in the low-dimension vector space by using the KG structure and neighborhood information in the transductive setting, where all entities must be seen in the training phase. However, many KGs are evolving and new entities are emerging every day in the real world. These conventional relation prediction models in the transductive settings cannot effectively learn the embeddings for the new entities unless re-training the whole KGs from scratch. Recently, researchers have focused on relation prediction in the inductive setting, where new entities are emerging while testing. Compared to relation prediction in the transductive setting, the inductive setting is more challenging since the missing links can be inferred in KGs with unseen entities. + +Currently, models on relation predictions in the inductive setting can be divided into two categories (Mai et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2022): rule-based methods and GCN-based methods. Rule-based methods (e.g., NeuralLP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al., + +![](images/e1cdb8df6377261d3205284707d11f07e8a5914a700a202c33b6d6612ed5e97c.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/75aebd81880e7a62c65fefbde96088e51b6e9a513ac8b049e1fd305e8b6c0ad2.jpg) +(b) +Figure 1: An example of node labeling of previous inductive relation prediction methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022). The subfigure (a) is a subgraph surrounding entity Barack Obama and the query is (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are extracted enclosing subgraphs for candidate triples (Barack Obama, Nationality, U.S.), (Barack Obama, Nationality, Chicago) and (Barack Obama, Nationality, Kenya). And the nodes in (b), (c), (d) are labeled by using the distances between each node and head (tail) node in corresponding candidate triple, which is widely used in previous works. + +![](images/c4e8936b07a72386d390e7af17f96e7ac5162d41c459f04aefc9228b52cdadfc.jpg) +(c) + +![](images/b36aa146885385878707772306c2ab4d93c274f4a1998cd788dbf2ec98aa98ba.jpg) +(d) + +2018) etc.) are able to handle the relation prediction with new/unseen entities since the rules are independent of any specific entities, their performance is usually insufficient due to the limitation of the flexible issue. GCN-based methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), require to extract a $k$ -hop enclosing subgraph1 for every candidate triple $(h, r, t)$ and then perform reasoning on all these candidate subgraphs. However, these methods suffer from the inefficient issue since the number of candidate triples is usually large. Figure 1 shows an example of the query (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are enclosing subgraphs extracted from graph (a) for three different candidate triples. Though the subgraphs (b) and (c) have the same structure, these previous methods have to perform reasoning two times, which will spend more reasoning time. Moreover, previous methods only use the distance as features and ignore rich local structure information in subgraphs, which leads to sub-optimal performance. As shown in Figure 1, the entity Honolulu in subfigure (b) is labeled as "(1,1)", which is the same with the entity Malik Obama in subfigure (d). This leads to similar node labeling for the nodes in (b) and (d), although these two subgraphs are totally different. Using these weak node features will result in poor performance since it is hard for the model to distinguish different subgraphs. + +Based on the above analysis, we are motivated to address two research issues: (1) How to develop a model to perform inductive reasoning for all candidate triples with only one subgraph and one-time node labeling and reasoning. (2) How to extract adequate transferable entity-independent anchor $^2$ knowledge to produce more expressive entity embeddings for emerging entities. + +To address these issues, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model. Specifically, for a given query $(h,r,?)$ where $?$ denotes a missing entity to be inferred, instead of extracting an enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple, we first extract a $k$ -hop opening subgraph surrounding the query entity $h$ for all candidates. This enables our model to perform reasoning by one time to rank all candidates, which is more efficient when the number of candidates is large. Then, we propose a dynamic anchor-based node labeling method to label each node with rich entity-independent information. Specifically, we construct three kinds of anchors for each query $(h,r,?)$ , including relation types, the center node of the subgraph and the one-hop neighbors of the center node which is adaptively selected according to the query entity $h$ . Based on these anchors, we can label each node in the subgraph with three kinds of features, namely relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. These rich node features en + +![](images/d5d1cd50b14423ad59f46b7e6097a3c055cd705a2ba5ba651051d14cc927c2c4.jpg) +Figure 2: The overview of the proposed QAAR model. + +able our model to learn expressive representation for subgraphs. Finally, a query-aware graph attention neural network is proposed to perform reasoning on subgraphs by gathering query-related neighborhood features. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that our proposed QAAR significantly outperforms previous methods, and achieves the new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance for inductive relation prediction. + +# 2 Our Approach + +Figure 2 illustrates the overview of the proposed QAAR, which consists of four modules: (1) opening subgraph extraction; (2) query adaptive anchor construction; (3) anchor-based node labeling; and (4) query-aware reasoning. Next, we will describe each module in details. + +# 2.1 Opening Subgraph Extraction + +Multi-hop subgraphs can provide rich evidence to infer missing links due to the implicit correlation between different relations. For example, the relation $(A, \text{farther}, B)$ can be inferred according to the two-hop facts $(A, \text{mother}, C)$ and $(C, \text{husband}, B)$ . Thus, we first extract a multi-hop subgraph for inductive relation prediction. Different from GraIL (Teru et al., 2020) and its extensions (e.g., TACT (Chen et al., 2021), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021) and ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022)), which extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple $(h, r, t)$ , we attempt to extract one opening subgraph for all candidate entities so that we can score all candidates with one-time reasoning on the subgraph. For a given query $(h, r, ?)$ , we first construct a $k$ -hop opening subgraph for the query entity $h$ by extracting the neighboring nodes surrounding $h$ with maximum $k$ -hop distance. We + +denote the $k$ -hop opening subgraph of $h$ as $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ . + +# 2.2 Query Adaptive Anchor Construction + +To learn transferable entity-independent node features in a given subgraph, we first design some anchors which can be shared by different subgraphs. Ideally, the anchors should be independent of any specific entities and have the ability to express local structure information of the given subgraph. To this end, we introduce the following three kinds of anchors: + +Relation types. Intuitively, the relation types are common information for subgraphs with different entities. Even on a new KG with unseen entities, the same set of relation types can be used to express the relations among entities. The set of relation types are denoted as $R = \{r_1, r_2, \dots, r_{|R|}\}$ , where $r_i$ is a relation in the relation set and $|R|$ is the number of relations. + +Center node. In our paper, each subgraph is extracted surrounding the given query entity $h$ which can be considered as the center node of the subgraph and each opening subgraph has a unique center node. We use the center node as an anchor and denote it as $node_0^4$ . With the center node, the model can be aware of where is the start node to perform reasoning. + +One-hop neighbors of center node. Besides, we also define the one-hop neighbors of the center node as anchors to better learn the local structure of subgraphs. For inductive relation prediction, we cannot directly use entity-specific embeddings to represent these one-hop neighbors. To address this problem, we leverage relationship between each + +The center node of the center node $h$ is a neighboring node and the center node to denote the neighbors. Specifically, for a neighboring entity $t$ which is connected to the center node $h$ with a triple $(h, r_i, t)$ , the neighboring entity $t$ can be denoted as $r_i^c$ which means a node connected to the center node with relation $r_i$ . Take the triple (Barack Obama, PlaceOfBirth, Honolulu) as an example, the entity Honolulu can be denoted as "the PlaceofBirth of Barack Obama". Thus, all neighboring nodes of the center node can be represented by combining the relation and center node, which can yield a set of one-hop neighborhood anchors $D = \{r_i^c | (h, r_i, t) \in \mathcal{T}_k(h)\}$ , where $\mathcal{T}_k(h)$ denotes the set of triples in $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ . + +According to the above definition, we can obtain a set of anchor relations $R$ and a set of anchor nodes $\text{Anc} = \{ \text{node}_0 \} \cup D$ . These anchor relations and the nodes are independent on any specific entity, which can be acted as the transferred metaknowledge to bridge the gap between the training KG and the test KG. + +# 2.3 Anchor-based Node Labeling + +In this subsection, we describe how to label each node in the opening subgraph using the anchors $R$ and $Anc$ . + +Relation-aware features. Given a node $n$ in the subgraph $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ , we extract the node's neighboring relations denoted as $\mathcal{R}(n)$ . We can capture some important type information about the node from these neighboring relations. For example, the tail entities of relation PlaceOfBirth are entities with a place type. Therefore, we use these relations to learn embedding for node $n$ : + +$$ +\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} = \sum_ {r \in \mathcal {R} (n)} \mathbf {r} \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{r}$ is the embedding for the relation $r$ . + +Structure-aware features. Only using the relation information cannot adequately express the structure of a given subgraph. In this paper, we propose a structure-aware labeling method to enrich the node features with local structure information. In a given subgraph, the center node and its one-hop neighboring nodes are viewed as anchor nodes $Anc$ as defined in Section 2.2. Thus, we can leverage neighboring relationship between each node with these anchor nodes to learn local structure of each node in the subgraph. Formally, let $\mathcal{A}_j(n) = \{a_i|a_i\in \mathcal{N}_j(n)\bigcap Anc\}$ be the $j$ -th hop neighboring anchor nodes of node $n$ , where + +$\mathcal{N}_j(n)$ denotes the $j$ -th hop neighbors of node $n$ The $j$ -th hop structure feature of node $n$ can be denoted as: + +$$ +\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {j} = \sum_ {a _ {i} \in \mathcal {A} _ {j} (n)} \mathbf {a} _ {i} \tag {2} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{a}_i$ is the embedding of anchor node $a_i$ . Note that by gathering neighboring anchor nodes from different hops, we can obtain multi-hop structure-aware features $\{\mathbf{v}_n^0,\mathbf{v}_n^1,\dots ,\mathbf{v}_n^J\}$ , where $J$ is the maximum hop of the structure-aware features5. + +Distance features. The distance can reveal the degree of correlation between each node and the center node. Therefore, we also leverage distance features to enrich the representation of each node. Specifically, we visit the neighboring nodes from different hops of the center node and obtain the shortest distance between each node and the center node. Let $d_{n}$ denote the distance between node $n$ and the center node, the embedding of distance feature is denoted as $\mathbf{v}_{n}^{d}$ . + +Finally, the relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features are combined to learn the initial embedding of each node $n$ : + +$$ +\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {0} = \mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} + \mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {0} + \dots + \mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {J} + \mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {d} \tag {3} +$$ + +# 2.4 Query-aware Reasoning + +In the above sections, we have described how to label the nodes for a extracted opening subgraph with relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. Then, we can perform reasoning on the opening subgraph. In this paper, we use a query-aware graph attention neural network (GAT) to propagate neighborhood information in the opening subgraph. Given a query $(h,r,\ref{eq:1})$ and a $k$ -hop subgraph $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ , we can aggregate the neighborhood features for each node $n$ in subgraph $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ : + +$$ +\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\prime} = \sum_ {(r, p) \in \mathcal {N} (n)} \alpha_ {p} ^ {l} [ \mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} | | \mathbf {r} _ {p} ] \mathbf {W} ^ {l} + \mathbf {b} ^ {l} \tag {4} +$$ + +where $\mathcal{N}(n) = \{(r_p,p)|(n,r_p,p)\in \mathcal{T}_k(h)\}$ is the set of neighbors of node $n$ , $\mathcal{T}_k(h)$ is the set of triples in $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ . $\mathbf{W}^l$ and $\mathbf{b}^l$ are trainable parameters in the $l$ -th GAT layer, $\alpha_{p}^{l}$ is the attention weight for the neighbor $(r_p,p)$ which is computed as: + +$$ +\alpha_ {p} ^ {l} = \sigma \left(\mathbf {r} _ {a} ^ {T} \left(\left[ \mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} \right| \left| \mathbf {r} _ {p} \right| \left| \mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} \right] \mathbf {W} _ {a} ^ {l} + \mathbf {b} _ {a} ^ {l}\right)\right) \tag {5} +$$ + +
WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
#Rel#Ent#Tri#Rel#Ent#Tri#R#Ent#Tri
V1train9274666781832000522614109155540
test9922199114615002404142251034
V2train1069541896820330001208588256410109
test1029234863176200050927949375521
V3train111207832150218400022394142464720117
test11508474701873000913712249219668
V3train9386198422225000339167720929289
test97208151572043500145546132948520
+ +Table 1: Statistics of the inductive datasets. "#Rel" denotes the number of relations, "#Ent" denotes the number of entities, "#Tri" denotes the number of triples. + +where $\mathbf{W}_a^l$ and $\mathbf{b}_a^l$ are the trainable parameters, $\mathbf{r}_a$ is the attention embedding of the query relation $r$ , $\sigma$ is the sigmoid activation function. + +To alleviate the vanishing gradient problem, we use a gated layer to integrate the node features as well as its neighborhood features. + +$$ +\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l + 1} = g \times \mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} + (1 - g) \times \mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\prime} \qquad (6) +$$ + +where $g$ is the gate to control the weight between the $l$ -th layer node feature $\mathbf{e}_n^l$ and the neighborhood feature $\mathbf{e}_n^r$ , which is defined as: + +$$ +g = \sigma ([ \mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} | | \mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\prime} ] \mathbf {W} _ {g} ^ {l} + \mathbf {b} _ {g} ^ {l}) \tag {7} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{W}_g^l$ and $\mathbf{b}_g^l$ are learnable parameters of the gate mechanism. + +In this paper, we stack query-aware GAT with $L$ layers to propagate multi-hop neighborhood features and obtain the final node embeddings by concatenating representations of all layers, namely $\mathbf{e}_n = [\mathbf{e}_n^0 ||\mathbf{e}_n^1 ||\dots ||\mathbf{e}_n^L ]$ . Then, an average-pooling layer is applied to obtain the representation of the subgraph $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ : + +$$ +\mathbf {e} _ {\mathcal {G}} = \frac {1}{| \mathcal {E} _ {k} |} \sum_ {n \in \mathcal {E} _ {k}} \mathbf {e} _ {n} \tag {8} +$$ + +Sequentially, we can compute the embedding for the given query $(h,r,\ref{eq:1})$ by taking into account the subgraph embedding $\mathbf{e}_{\mathcal{G}}$ , the query entity embedding $\mathbf{e}_h$ and the query relation embedding $\mathbf{r}$ : + +$$ +\mathbf {e} _ {\text {q u e r y}} = \left[ \mathbf {e} _ {\mathcal {G}} \right| \left| \mathbf {e} _ {h} \right| \left| \mathbf {r} \right] \mathbf {W} _ {q} + \mathbf {b} _ {q} \tag {9} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{W}_q$ and $\mathbf{b}_q$ are the trainable parameters of the query embedding layer. + +Finally, the score for a candidate answer entity $t$ can be obtained using the inner product of the + +query embedding $\mathbf{e}_{query}$ and the candidate answer entity embedding $\mathbf{e}_t$ : + +$$ +f (h, r, t) = \sigma (\mathbf {e} _ {\text {q u e r y}} ^ {T} \mathbf {e} _ {t}) \tag {10} +$$ + +Note that all the candidate answer entities are in the same subgraph $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ . Therefore, we can compute the scores for all candidates by performing reasoning on the subgraph $\mathcal{G}_k(h)$ by one time. This is different from previous methods which need extract and process a specific subgraph for every candidate triple. + +Following (Teru et al., 2020), we randomly sample a negative answer entity $t'$ for each query $(h, r, ?)$ and correct answer $t$ . The goal is to predict a higher score for each positive answer entity and lower score for the negative answer entity. Thus, we use the following cross entropy loss function to train the model: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \sum_ {(h, r, t) \in \mathcal {G} (h)} \log \left(f \left(h, r, t ^ {\prime}\right)\right) - \log \left(f (h, r, t)\right) \tag {11} +$$ + +For the query $(?,r,t)$ , which needs to predict the missing head entity, we use a inverse form $(t,r^{-1},?)$ to convert it into a query with a missing tail entity. + +# 3 Experiments + +# 3.1 Datasets and Evaluate Metrics + +To evaluate the inductive relation prediction performance of our QAAR, we conduct extensive experiments on three widely used datasets which are proposed in GraIL (Teru et al., 2020). These inductive datasets are extracted from WN18RR (Dettmers et al., 2018), FB15k-237(Toutanova et al., 2015) and NELL-995 (Xiong et al., 2017b). Each inductive dataset consists of train and test KGs and these + +
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.9452.9055.8855.16
DRUM†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.7352.9055.8855.10
RuleN†80.8578.2353.3971.5971.0149.7677.8287.6985.6075.21
Meta-iKG-----66.9674.0871.8972.2871.30
MorsE84.1481.5070.9279.6179.0483.1795.6795.6995.8992.61
GraIL†82.4578.6858.4373.4173.2464.1581.8082.8389.2979.51
CoMPILE†83.6079.8260.6975.4974.9067.6482.9884.6787.4480.68
TACT†84.0481.6367.9776.5677.5565.7683.5685.2088.6980.80
ConGLR†85.6492.9370.7492.9085.5568.2985.9888.6189.3182.93
NodePiece83.0088.6078.5080.7082.7087.3093.9094.4094.9092.35
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
+ +Table 2: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. $\dagger$ means the results are taken from (Lin et al., 2022). Other results are taken from their original papers. "Avg." denotes the average values of the four versions. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline. + +
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†40.7878.7382.7180.5870.70
DRUM†19.4278.5582.7180.5865.31
RuleN†53.5081.7577.2661.3568.46
Meta-iKG64.2077.9177.4173.1273.16
MorsE65.2080.7087.6753.4471.75
GraIL†59.5093.2591.4173.1979.33
CoMPILE†58.3893.8792.7775.1980.05
TACT*79.8088.9194.0273.7884.12
ConGLR*81.0794.9294.3681.6187.99
NodePiece89.0090.1093.6089.3090.50
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
+ +Table 3: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline. + +two KGs have no overlapping entities. And there are four versions with different sizes for each inductive dataset. The details of these datasets are shown in Table 1. + +Following the prior work (Teru et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022), we use hits@10 as the evaluation metric and compute hits@10 by ranking each test triple against 50 negative triples and check whether the positive triple is ranked in top 10. We run each experiment five times and report the mean results. + +# 3.2 Implementation Details + +We implement our model using Pytorch. We optimize our model using Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015). We choose the optimal hyperparameters via grid search. We select the batch size from $\{4,8,16,32\}$ , the learning rate from $\{0.0005,0.001,0.002\}$ , weight decay from $\{1e-2,1e-3,1e-4\}$ , dropout rate from $\{0.1,0.2,0.3\}$ , the number of GAT layers from $\{1,2,3\}$ , the subgraph size $k$ from $\{2,3,4,5\}$ , the maximum depth $J$ of structure + +aware features from $\{1,2,3\}$ , the dimension size of output entity embedding from $\{30,50,80\}$ . The best hyper-parameters are selected according to the hits@10 on validation set. Finally, the learning rate is set to 0.001, the batch size is set to 16, the weight decay is set to 1e-3, the dropout rate is set to 0.1, the number of GAT layers is set to 2, and the subgraph size $k$ is set to 4, the maximum depth of structure features is set to $J = 2$ , the dimension size of output entity embedding is set to 80. + +# 3.3 Baselines + +We compare our QAAR with the following rule-based models: Neural-LP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al., 2018), and GCN-based models: Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), MorsE (Chen et al., 2022), GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022) and NodePiece (Galkin et al., 2022). + +# 3.4 Experimental Results + +Table 2 and Table 3 show the experimental results on the four versions from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 under the evaluation metric of hits@10. From Table 2 and Table 3, we can have two interesting findings: (1) The GCN-based methods, which leverage GCNs to aggregate and propagate neighborhood information, performs better than rule-based methods. This indicates that rule-based methods are insufficient to obtain good performance for inductive relation prediction due to the brittleness of logical rules. Instead, GCN-based methods are more robust to capture complex structure patterns in KGs. (2) Our QAAR achieves better performance than most of SOTA GCN-based + +
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
QAAR w/o D87.2381.7486.4486.9185.5885.8590.7993.2994.1891.03
Δ-1.59-5.13-1.74-2.24-2.67-4.63-5.02-2.58-2.03-3.56
QAAR w/o R86.1786.1686.7789.4387.1384.6392.4693.6495.6491.59
Δ-2.65-0.71-1.41+0.28-1.12-5.85-3.35-2.23-0.57-3.00
QAAR w/o S85.6379.5986.6188.1785.0087.3194.3594.2195.2992.79
Δ-3.19-7.28-1.57-0.98-3.25-3.17-1.46-1.66-0.92-1.80
QAAR w/o A86.9681.5187.7688.3886.1584.3994.9794.9195.3692.41
Δ-1.86-5.36-0.42-0.77-2.10-6.09-0.84-0.96-0.85-2.18
+ +Table 4: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. $\Delta$ denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model. $\Delta$ denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model. + +
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
QAAR w/o D87.0090.3390.614.8188.19
Δ-2.50-5.99-3.95-6.34-4.69
QAAR w/o R85.5093.2792.8389.1990.20
Δ-4.00-3.05-1.73-1.96-2.68
QAAR w/o S82.5092.8592.5890.2888.55
Δ-7.00-3.47-1.98-0.87-3.33
QAAR w/o A86.0091.3892.0990.1589.91
Δ-3.50-4.94-2.47-1.00-2.97
+ +Table 5: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995. + +methods in term of hits@10 (e.g., our model achieves the best performance on 10 out of 12 versions of the inductive datasets). On the average hits@10 metrics of these three datasets, our QAAR outperforms other SOTA models. Compared to previous SOTA method ConGLR, our QAAR can achieve $2.7\%$ , $11.63\%$ and $4.89\%$ improvements on the average hits@10 metrics of WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets respectively. And compared to the SOTA method NodePiece, our QAAR outperforms NodePiece by $5.55\%$ , $2.24\%$ and $2.38\%$ margins on these three datasets. Compared with previous SOTA GCN-based methods, such as GraIL, TACT, CoMPILE, ConGLR and NodePiece, the proposed QAAR is able to capture richer transferable entity-independent features (e.g., relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) to learn the inductive embeddings for the nodes in a subgraph. The experimental results demonstrate that our QAAR is superior to current SOTA models. + +# 3.5 Ablation Study + +In this subsection, we perform an ablation study to investigate how each module in QAAR affects the performance. Specifically, for the node label + +ing, we use relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features to label each node. To study the contributions of these labeling strategies, we construct three variant models: "QAAR w/o R" denotes the model removing relation-aware features from QAAR model, "QAAR w/o S" denotes the model without using structure-aware features, and "QAAR w/o D" denotes the model without using distance features. Moreover, we also investigate the effect of query-aware graph attention layers by replacing it with GCN layers and obtain a variant model "QAAR w/o A". + +Table 4 and Table 5 show the experimental results of ablation study on the inductive datasets regarding the evaluation metric of hits@10. From the results, we can see that the performances of all variant models have decreased to some extent. This demonstrates all modules in QAAR play important roles for the performance improvement. Concretely, different components in QAAR have different effect on these inductive datasets. For WN18RR dataset, the structure-aware and distance features have more positive impact on the performance, while the relation-aware features have less positive impact and even slightly hurt the performance on v4 of WN18RR. This is because the relations in WN18RR express little entity type information. Take the most frequent relation "hypernym" in WN18RR as an example, we cannot infer the entity type for it. Instead, for FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets, the relations express more useful entity type information, which can help to improve the performance. Take the relation "Place-of-Birth" in FB15k-237 as an example, we can infer that the head entity of this relation is a person and the tail entity is a place. On average, all three types of features can contribute to the improvements of the performance. Moreover, the query-aware graph + +
#Neg.WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
GraILQAARGraILQAARGraILQAAR
2035.825.78147.6611.6363.8715.85
5052.385.92244.7812.0879.1915.98
8066.675.98324.3312.2891.5516.21
12081.526.23427.2912.46107.0216.73
15093.076.25498.3212.53136.7316.85
+ +Table 6: Reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995. "#Neg." denotes the number of negative candidates to be ranked. The reasoning times are measured in seconds. + +attention reasoning is also beneficial to relation prediction (QAAR vs. "QAAR w/o A"), which indicates that the query-aware graph attention layers can aggregate more relevant neighborhood information during reasoning. + +# 3.6 Efficiency Analysis + +In this section, we investigate the reasoning efficiency regarding the enclosing subgraph extraction vs. the opening subgraph extraction. We note that most previous inductive relation prediction models, such as CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), are all based on the enclosing subgraph extraction on the basis of GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), and take more time to perform reasoning since they consider more additional mechanisms. Therefore, we choose GraIL as the representative baseline. Table 6 shows the reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL995. It can be seen that our QAAR can spend less reasoning time than the GraIL model on these three datasets. Specifically, when the number of negative candidates is 50, the reasoning time of QAAR is about 9x faster than GraIL on WN18RR, 20x faster on FB15k-237, 5x faster on NELL-995. We can also find that the reasoning time of GraIL will dramatically increases when the number of negative candidates increases. Different from GraIL, the reasoning time of our QAAR remains at a stable level for different number of candidates. The reason is that our QAAR is able to rank all candidates in one opening subgraph with one-time reasoning, while GraIL will extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate and perform multiple reasoning on all these subgraphs. These empirical results verify the claim that our QAAR can perform more efficient reasoning than previous methods. + +# 4 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we develop a model to rank all candidate triples in one opening subgraph. Second, we design three types of query adaptive anchors for subgraphs and extract three kinds of entity-independent features including relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features, which are useful for inductive relation prediction. Finally, we use a query-aware graph attention model to perform inductive reasoning on subgraphs. The experimental results on 12 versions of inductive relation prediction datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed QAAR model. + +# Limitations + +Although our QAAR achieves better performance on inductive relation prediction, it still suffers from some limitations. First, for a give query we extract a $k$ -hop subgraph without using any sampling method, which will require large GPU memory when the extracted subgraph is large. Second, our QAAR does not leverage logical rules to enhance the performance which has shown useful in previous methods (Lin et al., 2022). We believe that our method can be further improved by incorporating logical rules. We will leave these opening issues in the future work. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61972290 and 61972173, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. CCNU22QN015), and Wuhan Knowledge Innovation Project (No. 2022010801010278). This work was also supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, an NSERC CREATE award in ADERSIM6, the York Research Chairs (YRC) program and an ORFRE (Ontario Research Fund-Research Excellence) award in BRAIN Alliance7. We thank anonymous reviewers for their thorough review comments on this paper. + +# References + +Ivana Balazevic, Carl Allen, and Timothy M. Hospedales. 2019. Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5184-5193. +Kurt D. Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 10-12, 2008, pages 1247-1250. ACM. +Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 2787-2795. +Linlin Chao, Jianshan He, Taifeng Wang, and Wei Chu. 2021. *PairRE: Knowledge graph embeddings via paired relation vectors*. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4360-4369. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiajun Chen, Huarui He, Feng Wu, and Jie Wang. 2021. Topology-aware correlations between relations for inductive link prediction in knowledge graphs. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6271-6278. AAAI Press. +Mingyang Chen, Wen Zhang, Yushan Zhu, Hongting Zhou, Zonggang Yuan, Changliang Xu, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Meta-knowledge transfer for inductive knowledge graph embedding. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 927-937. ACM. +Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2D knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI + +Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818. +Mikhail Galkin, Etienne G. Denis, Jiapeng Wu, and William L. Hamilton. 2022. Nodepiece: Compositional and parameter-efficient representations of large knowledge graphs. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. +Johannes Hoffart, Fabian M. Suchanek, Klaus Berberich, and Gerhard Weikum. 2013. YAGO2: A spatially and temporally enhanced knowledge base from wikipedia. Artif. Intell., 194:28-61. +Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. +Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N. Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick van Kleef, Soren Auer, and Christian Bizer. 2015. Dbpedia - A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195. +Junzhuo Li and Deyi Xiong. 2022. Kafsp: Knowledge-aware fuzzy semantic parsing for conversational question answering over a large-scale knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 461-473. +Qika Lin, Jun Liu, Fangzhi Xu, Yudai Pan, Yifan Zhu, Lingling Zhang, and Tianzhe Zhao. 2022. Incorporating context graph with logical reasoning for inductive relation prediction. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 893-903. ACM. +Farzaneh Mahdisoltani, Joanna Biega, and Fabian M. Suchanek. 2015. YAGO3: A knowledge base from multilingual wikimedia. In CIDR 2015, Seventh Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, Asilomar, CA, USA, January 4-7, 2015, Online Proceedings. +Sijie Mai, Shuangjia Zheng, Yuedong Yang, and Haifeng Hu. 2021. Communicative message passing for inductive relation reasoning. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 4294-4302. AAAI Press. +Christian Meilicke, Manuel Fink, Yanjie Wang, Daniel Ruffinelli, Rainer Gemulla, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2018. Fine-grained evaluation of rule- and + +embedding-based systems for knowledge graph completion. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2018 - 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8-12, 2018, Proceedings, Part I, volume 11136 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 3-20. Springer. +Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4710-4723. +Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. DRUM: end-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 15321-15331. +Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. RotatE: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. +Komal K. Teru, Etienne G. Denis, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9448-9457. PMLR. +Kristina Toutanova, Danqi Chen, Patrick Pantel, Hoifung Poon, Pallavi Choudhury, and Michael Gamon. 2015. Representing text for joint embedding of text and knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1499-1509. +Shikhar Vashisht, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. +Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wiki-data: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM, 57(10):78-85. +Junkang Wu, Wentao Shi, Xuezhi Cao, Jiawei Chen, Wenqiang Lei, Fuzheng Zhang, Wei Wu, and Xiangnan He. 2021. DisenKGAT: Knowledge graph embedding with disentangled graph attention network. In in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2021, Virtual Event, Queensland, Australia, November 1 - 5, 2021, pages 2140-2149. ACM. + +Huiru Xiao, Xin Liu, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Y. Wong, and Simon See. 2022. Complex hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings with fast fourier transform. CoRR, abs/2211.03635. +Zhiwen Xie, Guangyou Zhou, Jin Liu, and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2020. ReInceptionE: Relation-aware inception network with joint local-global structural information for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5929-5939. +Chenyan Xiong, Russell Power, and Jamie Callan. 2017a. Explicit semantic ranking for academic search via knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 1271-1279. ACM. +Wenhan Xiong, Thien Hoang, and William Yang Wang. 2017b. Deeppath: A reinforcement learning method for knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 564-573. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. +Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2319-2328. +Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ningyu Zhang, Qianghuai Jia, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hongbin Ye, Hui Chen, Huaixiao Tou, Gang Huang, Zhao Wang, Nengwei Hua, and Huajun Chen. 2021. AliCG: Fine-grained and evolvable conceptual graph construction for semantic search at alibaba. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 3895-3905. ACM. +Yongqi Zhang, Zhanke Zhou, Quanming Yao, and Yong Li. 2022. KGTuner: Efficient hyper-parameter search for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association + +for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2715-2735. +Shuangjia Zheng, Sijie Mai, Ya Sun, Haifeng Hu, and Yuedong Yang. 2021. Subgraph-aware few-shot inductive link prediction via meta-learning. CoRR, abs/2108.00954. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Section 6 Limitations + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Section 1 + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Section 4.1 + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +Section 4.1 + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +Section 4.1 + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Appendix A. Statistic of Datasets + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Section 4 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Section 4.6 + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +Section 4.2 + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +Section 4.1 + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/images.zip b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5074a6e26791d2aed5a7b04fd995cec479338ffa --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f3c953343cb8671467f429a17621998d09efbda36cdbe07d8626f9c91e6e65c5 +size 535490 diff --git a/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/layout.json b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..476b391c42f5130332fac11d25cfd4ababd7085a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10824 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 69, + 519, + 101 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 69, + 519, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 69, + 519, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning Query Adaptive Anchor Representation for Inductive Relation Prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiwen Xie" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yi Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jin Liu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Guangyou Zhou" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jimmy Xiangji Huang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 109, + 495, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 125, + 416, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 125, + 416, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 125, + 416, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 125, + 416, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Computer Science, Wuhan University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 139, + 453, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 139, + 453, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 139, + 453, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 139, + 453, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Computer Science, Central China Normal University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 153, + 500, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 153, + 500, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 153, + 500, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Information Retrieval and Knowledge Management Research Lab, York University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 168, + 439, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 168, + 439, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 168, + 439, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "xiezhiwen@whu.edu.cn, yizhang@mails.ccnu.edu.cn," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 181, + 470, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 181, + 470, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 181, + 470, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "jinliu@whu.edu.cn, gyzhou@mail.ccnu.edu.cn, jhuang@yorku.ca" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relation prediction on knowledge graphs (KGs) attempts to infer the missing links between entities. Most previous studies are limited to the transductive setting where all entities must be seen during the training, making them unable to perform reasoning on emerging entities. Recently, the inductive setting is proposed to handle the entities in the test phase to be unseen during training. However, it suffers from the inefficient reasoning under the enclosing subgraph extraction issue and the lack of effective entity-independent feature modeling. To this end, we propose a novel Query Adaptive Anchor Representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we extract one opening subgraph and perform reasoning by one time for all candidate triples, which is more efficient when the number of candidate triples is large. Second, we define some query adaptive anchors which are independent on any specific entity. Based on these anchors, we take advantage of the transferable entity-independent features (relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) that can be used to produce entity embeddings for emerging unseen entities. Such entity-independent features is modeled by a query-aware graph attention network on the opening subgraph. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed QAAR outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in inductive relation prediction task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 625 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge graphs (KGs) store a large amount of facts regarding the real-world knowledge in the form of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h,r,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h, t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are head and tail entities and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the relation between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". They have played important roles in various downstream applications, including but not limited to question answering (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Li and Xiong, 2022), semantic search (Xiong et al., 2017a; Zhang et al., 2021) and many more. Nowadays many" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "large-scale KGs such as Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008), Dbpedia (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yago (Hoffart et al., 2013; Mahdisoltani et al., 2015) and Wikidata (Vrandecic and Krötzsch, 2014) have been constructed, but they still suffer from an incompleteness problem. To make up such limitation, relation prediction or knowledge graph embedding (KGE) has been proposed to infer the missing links in KGs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The conventional relation prediction models, such as TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), DistMult (Yang et al., 2015), RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), TuckER (Balazevic et al., 2019), CompGCN (Vashishth et al., 2020), KBGAT (Nathani et al., 2019), ReInceptionE (Xie et al., 2020), DisenKGAT (Wu et al., 2021), PairRE (Chao et al., 2021), FFTAttH (Xiao et al., 2022), KGTuner (Zhang et al., 2022) have successively achieved satisfactory performance on relation prediction. They all follow a general strategy to represent the entities in the low-dimension vector space by using the KG structure and neighborhood information in the transductive setting, where all entities must be seen in the training phase. However, many KGs are evolving and new entities are emerging every day in the real world. These conventional relation prediction models in the transductive settings cannot effectively learn the embeddings for the new entities unless re-training the whole KGs from scratch. Recently, researchers have focused on relation prediction in the inductive setting, where new entities are emerging while testing. Compared to relation prediction in the transductive setting, the inductive setting is more challenging since the missing links can be inferred in KGs with unseen entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Currently, models on relation predictions in the inductive setting can be divided into two categories (Mai et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2022): rule-based methods and GCN-based methods. Rule-based methods (e.g., NeuralLP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 176, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 176, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 176, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14041" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 14041-14053" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 69, + 255, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 69, + 255, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 69, + 255, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 69, + 255, + 181 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e1cdb8df6377261d3205284707d11f07e8a5914a700a202c33b6d6612ed5e97c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 185, + 169, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 185, + 169, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 185, + 169, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 258, + 68, + 333, + 182 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 68, + 333, + 182 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 68, + 333, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 68, + 333, + 182 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "75aebd81880e7a62c65fefbde96088e51b6e9a513ac8b049e1fd305e8b6c0ad2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 294, + 186, + 304, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 294, + 186, + 304, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 294, + 186, + 304, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 526, + 288 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 526, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An example of node labeling of previous inductive relation prediction methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022). The subfigure (a) is a subgraph surrounding entity Barack Obama and the query is (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are extracted enclosing subgraphs for candidate triples (Barack Obama, Nationality, U.S.), (Barack Obama, Nationality, Chicago) and (Barack Obama, Nationality, Kenya). And the nodes in (b), (c), (d) are labeled by using the distances between each node and head (tail) node in corresponding candidate triple, which is widely used in previous works." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 340, + 68, + 418, + 182 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 68, + 418, + 182 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 68, + 418, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 68, + 418, + 182 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c4e8936b07a72386d390e7af17f96e7ac5162d41c459f04aefc9228b52cdadfc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 186, + 384, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 186, + 384, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 186, + 384, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 68, + 500, + 182 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 68, + 500, + 182 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 68, + 500, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 68, + 500, + 182 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b36aa146885385878707772306c2ab4d93c274f4a1998cd788dbf2ec98aa98ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 455, + 186, + 464, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 455, + 186, + 464, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 455, + 186, + 464, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2018) etc.) are able to handle the relation prediction with new/unseen entities since the rules are independent of any specific entities, their performance is usually insufficient due to the limitation of the flexible issue. GCN-based methods, such as GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), require to extract a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop enclosing subgraph1 for every candidate triple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h, r, t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and then perform reasoning on all these candidate subgraphs. However, these methods suffer from the inefficient issue since the number of candidate triples is usually large. Figure 1 shows an example of the query (Barack Obama, Nationality, ?). The subfigures (b), (c) and (d) are enclosing subgraphs extracted from graph (a) for three different candidate triples. Though the subgraphs (b) and (c) have the same structure, these previous methods have to perform reasoning two times, which will spend more reasoning time. Moreover, previous methods only use the distance as features and ignore rich local structure information in subgraphs, which leads to sub-optimal performance. As shown in Figure 1, the entity Honolulu in subfigure (b) is labeled as \"(1,1)\", which is the same with the entity Malik Obama in subfigure (d). This leads to similar node labeling for the nodes in (b) and (d), although these two subgraphs are totally different. Using these weak node features will result in poor performance since it is hard for the model to distinguish different subgraphs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the above analysis, we are motivated to address two research issues: (1) How to develop a model to perform inductive reasoning for all candidate triples with only one subgraph and one-time node labeling and reasoning. (2) How to extract adequate transferable entity-independent anchor" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " knowledge to produce more expressive entity embeddings for emerging entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these issues, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model. Specifically, for a given query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h,r,?)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "?" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes a missing entity to be inferred, instead of extracting an enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple, we first extract a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop opening subgraph surrounding the query entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for all candidates. This enables our model to perform reasoning by one time to rank all candidates, which is more efficient when the number of candidates is large. Then, we propose a dynamic anchor-based node labeling method to label each node with rich entity-independent information. Specifically, we construct three kinds of anchors for each query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h,r,?)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", including relation types, the center node of the subgraph and the one-hop neighbors of the center node which is adaptively selected according to the query entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Based on these anchors, we can label each node in the subgraph with three kinds of features, namely relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. These rich node features en" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2The anchors in this paper denote the transferable meta knowledge, which is independent of any specific entities and can be transferred to new graphs with unseen entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Unlike the enclosing subgraph, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -hop opening subgraph of entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains all neighboring nodes with the maximum " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -hop distance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following (Teru et al., 2020), a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop enclosing subgraph between nodes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains all nodes that appear on the graph from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the maximum " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop distance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14042" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 223 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 223 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 223 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d5d1cd50b14423ad59f46b7e6097a3c055cd705a2ba5ba651051d14cc927c2c4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 229, + 408, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 229, + 408, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 229, + 408, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overview of the proposed QAAR model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 292, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 292, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 292, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "able our model to learn expressive representation for subgraphs. Finally, a query-aware graph attention neural network is proposed to perform reasoning on subgraphs by gathering query-related neighborhood features. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that our proposed QAAR significantly outperforms previous methods, and achieves the new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance for inductive relation prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 164, + 411 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 164, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 164, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Our Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2 illustrates the overview of the proposed QAAR, which consists of four modules: (1) opening subgraph extraction; (2) query adaptive anchor construction; (3) anchor-based node labeling; and (4) query-aware reasoning. Next, we will describe each module in details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 238, + 525 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 238, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 238, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Opening Subgraph Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-hop subgraphs can provide rich evidence to infer missing links due to the implicit correlation between different relations. For example, the relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(A, \\text{farther}, B)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be inferred according to the two-hop facts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(A, \\text{mother}, C)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(C, \\text{husband}, B)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus, we first extract a multi-hop subgraph for inductive relation prediction. Different from GraIL (Teru et al., 2020) and its extensions (e.g., TACT (Chen et al., 2021), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021) and ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022)), which extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate triple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h, r, t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we attempt to extract one opening subgraph for all candidate entities so that we can score all candidates with one-time reasoning on the subgraph. For a given query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h, r, ?)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we first construct a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop opening subgraph for the query entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by extracting the neighboring nodes surrounding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with maximum " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop distance. We" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "denote the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop opening subgraph of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 508, + 302 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 508, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 508, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Query Adaptive Anchor Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To learn transferable entity-independent node features in a given subgraph, we first design some anchors which can be shared by different subgraphs. Ideally, the anchors should be independent of any specific entities and have the ability to express local structure information of the given subgraph. To this end, we introduce the following three kinds of anchors:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relation types. Intuitively, the relation types are common information for subgraphs with different entities. Even on a new KG with unseen entities, the same set of relation types can be used to express the relations among entities. The set of relation types are denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R = \\{r_1, r_2, \\dots, r_{|R|}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a relation in the relation set and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|R|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Center node. In our paper, each subgraph is extracted surrounding the given query entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which can be considered as the center node of the subgraph and each opening subgraph has a unique center node. We use the center node as an anchor and denote it as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "node_0^4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". With the center node, the model can be aware of where is the start node to perform reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One-hop neighbors of center node. Besides, we also define the one-hop neighbors of the center node as anchors to better learn the local structure of subgraphs. For inductive relation prediction, we cannot directly use entity-specific embeddings to represent these one-hop neighbors. To address this problem, we leverage relationship between each" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes a specific query entity in KG, while node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a special symbol to represent the center node of a subgraph, which is transferable to any subgraph." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14043" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The center node of the center node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a neighboring node and the center node to denote the neighbors. Specifically, for a neighboring entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is connected to the center node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a triple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h, r_i, t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the neighboring entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i^c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which means a node connected to the center node with relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Take the triple (Barack Obama, PlaceOfBirth, Honolulu) as an example, the entity Honolulu can be denoted as \"the PlaceofBirth of Barack Obama\". Thus, all neighboring nodes of the center node can be represented by combining the relation and center node, which can yield a set of one-hop neighborhood anchors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D = \\{r_i^c | (h, r_i, t) \\in \\mathcal{T}_k(h)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the set of triples in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 261, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 261, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 261, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to the above definition, we can obtain a set of anchor relations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 261, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 261, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a set of anchor nodes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 261, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{Anc} = \\{ \\text{node}_0 \\} \\cup D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 261, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These anchor relations and the nodes are independent on any specific entity, which can be acted as the transferred metaknowledge to bridge the gap between the training KG and the test KG." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 232, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 232, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 232, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Anchor-based Node Labeling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this subsection, we describe how to label each node in the opening subgraph using the anchors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Anc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relation-aware features. Given a node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the subgraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we extract the node's neighboring relations denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}(n)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We can capture some important type information about the node from these neighboring relations. For example, the tail entities of relation PlaceOfBirth are entities with a place type. Therefore, we use these relations to learn embedding for node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 544, + 290, + 573 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 544, + 290, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 544, + 290, + 573 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} = \\sum_ {r \\in \\mathcal {R} (n)} \\mathbf {r} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "637fed08bd341d7e63d4168db3cee7898a8b387b7029ba8b45f717eb60a54179.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 260, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 260, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 260, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 260, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 260, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the embedding for the relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 260, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 260, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Structure-aware features. Only using the relation information cannot adequately express the structure of a given subgraph. In this paper, we propose a structure-aware labeling method to enrich the node features with local structure information. In a given subgraph, the center node and its one-hop neighboring nodes are viewed as anchor nodes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Anc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as defined in Section 2.2. Thus, we can leverage neighboring relationship between each node with these anchor nodes to learn local structure of each node in the subgraph. Formally, let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}_j(n) = \\{a_i|a_i\\in \\mathcal{N}_j(n)\\bigcap Anc\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th hop neighboring anchor nodes of node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{N}_j(n)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -th hop neighbors of node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -th hop structure feature of node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be denoted as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 110, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 110, + 524, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 110, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {j} = \\sum_ {a _ {i} \\in \\mathcal {A} _ {j} (n)} \\mathbf {a} _ {i} \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "4d3a8024b34acfb2ff6df09cd05986b56356b4b3cbf9d1fac5b79ffb74652e5e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{a}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the embedding of anchor node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that by gathering neighboring anchor nodes from different hops, we can obtain multi-hop structure-aware features " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\mathbf{v}_n^0,\\mathbf{v}_n^1,\\dots ,\\mathbf{v}_n^J\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the maximum hop of the structure-aware features5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Distance features. The distance can reveal the degree of correlation between each node and the center node. Therefore, we also leverage distance features to enrich the representation of each node. Specifically, we visit the neighboring nodes from different hops of the center node and obtain the shortest distance between each node and the center node. Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the distance between node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the center node, the embedding of distance feature is denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_{n}^{d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 524, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, the relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features are combined to learn the initial embedding of each node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 395, + 524, + 412 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 395, + 524, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 395, + 524, + 412 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {0} = \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {r} + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {0} + \\dots + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {J} + \\mathbf {v} _ {n} ^ {d} \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "77d7175d27e056b4196e621779ccd597d4ff5381f882ef66d7799e02f4f909b9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 430, + 444, + 443 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 430, + 444, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 430, + 444, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.4 Query-aware Reasoning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the above sections, we have described how to label the nodes for a extracted opening subgraph with relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features. Then, we can perform reasoning on the opening subgraph. In this paper, we use a query-aware graph attention neural network (GAT) to propagate neighborhood information in the opening subgraph. Given a query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h,r,\\ref{eq:1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop subgraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we can aggregate the neighborhood features for each node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in subgraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 592, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 592, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 592, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {(r, p) \\in \\mathcal {N} (n)} \\alpha_ {p} ^ {l} [ \\mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} | | \\mathbf {r} _ {p} ] \\mathbf {W} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} ^ {l} \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "c0f0ad5e15ab2fde89048a1dc2a46c16a4f0d883de2d740f166ba396432865b8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{N}(n) = \\{(r_p,p)|(n,r_p,p)\\in \\mathcal{T}_k(h)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the set of neighbors of node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the set of triples in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are trainable parameters in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th GAT layer, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{p}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the attention weight for the neighbor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(r_p,p)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is computed as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 707, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 707, + 524, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 707, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_ {p} ^ {l} = \\sigma \\left(\\mathbf {r} _ {a} ^ {T} \\left(\\left[ \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {r} _ {p} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {e} _ {p} ^ {l} \\right] \\mathbf {W} _ {a} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} _ {a} ^ {l}\\right)\\right) \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "7791a8d2ba7e884d28a3f6d718d298d88e2cb6fe88ccee37081ca6812429bba1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5Note that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the maximum hop of the opening subgraph surrounding the center node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the maximum hop of structure-aware neighboring anchors for each node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the subgraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14044" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 210 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 210 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 490, + 210 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
#Rel#Ent#Tri#Rel#Ent#Tri#R#Ent#Tri
V1train9274666781832000522614109155540
test9922199114615002404142251034
V2train1069541896820330001208588256410109
test1029234863176200050927949375521
V3train111207832150218400022394142464720117
test11508474701873000913712249219668
V3train9386198422225000339167720929289
test97208151572043500145546132948520
", + "image_path": "4e131af43a5fb87352342fd6417fa5d3e426bff9e45ee60ee83ed395de1d9196.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 525, + 242 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 525, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 525, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Statistics of the inductive datasets. \"#Rel\" denotes the number of relations, \"#Ent\" denotes the number of entities, \"#Tri\" denotes the number of triples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_a^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}_a^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the trainable parameters, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}_a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the attention embedding of the query relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the sigmoid activation function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To alleviate the vanishing gradient problem, we use a gated layer to integrate the node features as well as its neighborhood features." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 353, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 353, + 290, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 353, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l + 1} = g \\times \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} + (1 - g) \\times \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} \\qquad (6)", + "image_path": "a2f6ce353556be17d619797f71ab3fdf1f16108066a5c4a86687d606b08eba85.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the gate to control the weight between the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th layer node feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{e}_n^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the neighborhood feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{e}_n^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 429, + 290, + 448 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 429, + 290, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 429, + 290, + 448 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "g = \\sigma ([ \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {l} | | \\mathbf {e} _ {n} ^ {\\prime} ] \\mathbf {W} _ {g} ^ {l} + \\mathbf {b} _ {g} ^ {l}) \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "ed52924eb314ec387a08131e1f2e2a3ed9987dfec313226cf55db315402b19a0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 290, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_g^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}_g^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are learnable parameters of the gate mechanism." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we stack query-aware GAT with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers to propagate multi-hop neighborhood features and obtain the final node embeddings by concatenating representations of all layers, namely " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{e}_n = [\\mathbf{e}_n^0 ||\\mathbf{e}_n^1 ||\\dots ||\\mathbf{e}_n^L ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then, an average-pooling layer is applied to obtain the representation of the subgraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 587, + 290, + 621 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 587, + 290, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 587, + 290, + 621 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {e} _ {\\mathcal {G}} = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {E} _ {k} |} \\sum_ {n \\in \\mathcal {E} _ {k}} \\mathbf {e} _ {n} \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "b8070c9a70521ddeb620d2d34dfa24f8873fbbee911d1df71e2f6bd5a580107e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sequentially, we can compute the embedding for the given query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h,r,\\ref{eq:1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by taking into account the subgraph embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{e}_{\\mathcal{G}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the query entity embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{e}_h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the query relation embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 694, + 290, + 710 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 694, + 290, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 694, + 290, + 710 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {e} _ {\\text {q u e r y}} = \\left[ \\mathbf {e} _ {\\mathcal {G}} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {e} _ {h} \\right| \\left| \\mathbf {r} \\right] \\mathbf {W} _ {q} + \\mathbf {b} _ {q} \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "dae4f97685b676b521a01c969a5482ad817afdfcd04a1104ebfc2b8a8646fb21.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}_q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the trainable parameters of the query embedding layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, the score for a candidate answer entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be obtained using the inner product of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 524, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 524, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 524, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "query embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 524, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{e}_{query}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 524, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the candidate answer entity embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 524, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{e}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 524, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 298, + 525, + 317 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 298, + 525, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 298, + 525, + 317 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f (h, r, t) = \\sigma (\\mathbf {e} _ {\\text {q u e r y}} ^ {T} \\mathbf {e} _ {t}) \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "a505181d6c72899d54862e5dcb9fc0ddd2e8a56f3d08c5144d06303c5fad4e13.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that all the candidate answer entities are in the same subgraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Therefore, we can compute the scores for all candidates by performing reasoning on the subgraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_k(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by one time. This is different from previous methods which need extract and process a specific subgraph for every candidate triple." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following (Teru et al., 2020), we randomly sample a negative answer entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h, r, ?)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and correct answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The goal is to predict a higher score for each positive answer entity and lower score for the negative answer entity. Thus, we use the following cross entropy loss function to train the model:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 521, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 521, + 525, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 521, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\sum_ {(h, r, t) \\in \\mathcal {G} (h)} \\log \\left(f \\left(h, r, t ^ {\\prime}\\right)\\right) - \\log \\left(f (h, r, t)\\right) \\tag {11}", + "image_path": "2454c4421d950137d20e445cee8ac57efbc5be5c32e6ea5176af6fc4a15a4654.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 525, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(?,r,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which needs to predict the missing head entity, we use a inverse form " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(t,r^{-1},?)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to convert it into a query with a missing tail entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 390, + 640 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 390, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 390, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 647, + 474, + 660 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 647, + 474, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 647, + 474, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Datasets and Evaluate Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate the inductive relation prediction performance of our QAAR, we conduct extensive experiments on three widely used datasets which are proposed in GraIL (Teru et al., 2020). These inductive datasets are extracted from WN18RR (Dettmers et al., 2018), FB15k-237(Toutanova et al., 2015) and NELL-995 (Xiong et al., 2017b). Each inductive dataset consists of train and test KGs and these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14045" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 486, + 212 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 486, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 486, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 486, + 212 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.9452.9055.8855.16
DRUM†74.3768.9346.1867.1364.1552.9258.7352.9055.8855.10
RuleN†80.8578.2353.3971.5971.0149.7677.8287.6985.6075.21
Meta-iKG-----66.9674.0871.8972.2871.30
MorsE84.1481.5070.9279.6179.0483.1795.6795.6995.8992.61
GraIL†82.4578.6858.4373.4173.2464.1581.8082.8389.2979.51
CoMPILE†83.6079.8260.6975.4974.9067.6482.9884.6787.4480.68
TACT†84.0481.6367.9776.5677.5565.7683.5685.2088.6980.80
ConGLR†85.6492.9370.7492.9085.5568.2985.9888.6189.3182.93
NodePiece83.0088.6078.5080.7082.7087.3093.9094.4094.9092.35
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
", + "image_path": "74864438c61e7d914e72aa49f136873d32769776af967c378fcbcd06d511cc0c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 289, + 417 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 526, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 526, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means the results are taken from (Lin et al., 2022). Other results are taken from their original papers. \"Avg.\" denotes the average values of the four versions. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 289, + 417 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 289, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 289, + 417 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
Neural-LP†40.7878.7382.7180.5870.70
DRUM†19.4278.5582.7180.5865.31
RuleN†53.5081.7577.2661.3568.46
Meta-iKG64.2077.9177.4173.1273.16
MorsE65.2080.7087.6753.4471.75
GraIL†59.5093.2591.4173.1979.33
CoMPILE†58.3893.8792.7775.1980.05
TACT*79.8088.9194.0273.7884.12
ConGLR*81.0794.9294.3681.6187.99
NodePiece89.0090.1093.6089.3090.50
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
", + "image_path": "4b566685ad7d43e783419ca60b8fa0a66d8cc6ee3c0ce28881033b941bc1e666.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 463 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Hits@10 results on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995. The best results are in bold while the second best scores are in underline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 290, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "two KGs have no overlapping entities. And there are four versions with different sizes for each inductive dataset. The details of these datasets are shown in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 290, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 290, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 290, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following the prior work (Teru et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022), we use hits@10 as the evaluation metric and compute hits@10 by ranking each test triple against 50 negative triples and check whether the positive triple is ranked in top 10. We run each experiment five times and report the mean results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 206, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 206, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 206, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implement our model using Pytorch. We optimize our model using Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015). We choose the optimal hyperparameters via grid search. We select the batch size from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{4,8,16,32\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the learning rate from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.0005,0.001,0.002\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", weight decay from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1e-2,1e-3,1e-4\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", dropout rate from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.1,0.2,0.3\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the number of GAT layers from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1,2,3\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the subgraph size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{2,3,4,5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the maximum depth " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of structure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "aware features from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1,2,3\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the dimension size of output entity embedding from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{30,50,80\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The best hyper-parameters are selected according to the hits@10 on validation set. Finally, the learning rate is set to 0.001, the batch size is set to 16, the weight decay is set to 1e-3, the dropout rate is set to 0.1, the number of GAT layers is set to 2, and the subgraph size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 4, the maximum depth of structure features is set to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the dimension size of output entity embedding is set to 80." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 374, + 438 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 374, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 374, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare our QAAR with the following rule-based models: Neural-LP (Yang et al., 2017), DRUM (Sadeghian et al., 2019), RuleN (Meilicke et al., 2018), and GCN-based models: Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), MorsE (Chen et al., 2022), GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022) and NodePiece (Galkin et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 432, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 432, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 432, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 and Table 3 show the experimental results on the four versions from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 under the evaluation metric of hits@10. From Table 2 and Table 3, we can have two interesting findings: (1) The GCN-based methods, which leverage GCNs to aggregate and propagate neighborhood information, performs better than rule-based methods. This indicates that rule-based methods are insufficient to obtain good performance for inductive relation prediction due to the brittleness of logical rules. Instead, GCN-based methods are more robust to capture complex structure patterns in KGs. (2) Our QAAR achieves better performance than most of SOTA GCN-based" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14046" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 103, + 68, + 490, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 68, + 490, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 68, + 490, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 68, + 490, + 184 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsWN18RRFB15k-237
v1v2v3v4Avg.v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR88.8286.8788.1889.1588.2590.4895.8195.8796.2194.59
QAAR w/o D87.2381.7486.4486.9185.5885.8590.7993.2994.1891.03
Δ-1.59-5.13-1.74-2.24-2.67-4.63-5.02-2.58-2.03-3.56
QAAR w/o R86.1786.1686.7789.4387.1384.6392.4693.6495.6491.59
Δ-2.65-0.71-1.41+0.28-1.12-5.85-3.35-2.23-0.57-3.00
QAAR w/o S85.6379.5986.6188.1785.0087.3194.3594.2195.2992.79
Δ-3.19-7.28-1.57-0.98-3.25-3.17-1.46-1.66-0.92-1.80
QAAR w/o A86.9681.5187.7688.3886.1584.3994.9794.9195.3692.41
Δ-1.86-5.36-0.42-0.77-2.10-6.09-0.84-0.96-0.85-2.18
", + "image_path": "0a75a5b02f8c77ca24ee306362867417e04390f158c5d7a141ac7ba521faa599.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 248, + 287, + 359 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 525, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 525, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 525, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from WN18RR and FB15k-237. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 525, + 228 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 525, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 525, + 228 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 525, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the differences between each ablation model and the original QAAR model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 248, + 287, + 359 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 248, + 287, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 248, + 287, + 359 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsNELL-995
v1v2v3v4Avg.
QAAR89.5096.3294.5691.1592.88
QAAR w/o D87.0090.3390.614.8188.19
Δ-2.50-5.99-3.95-6.34-4.69
QAAR w/o R85.5093.2792.8389.1990.20
Δ-4.00-3.05-1.73-1.96-2.68
QAAR w/o S82.5092.8592.5890.2888.55
Δ-7.00-3.47-1.98-0.87-3.33
QAAR w/o A86.0091.3892.0990.1589.91
Δ-3.50-4.94-2.47-1.00-2.97
", + "image_path": "2efa22a0d552c642a7166610f9731192b9aa18c052ba8b94b090ff1dd85bbc30.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 289, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 289, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Ablation study on the inductive benchmark datasets extracted from NELL-995." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "methods in term of hits@10 (e.g., our model achieves the best performance on 10 out of 12 versions of the inductive datasets). On the average hits@10 metrics of these three datasets, our QAAR outperforms other SOTA models. Compared to previous SOTA method ConGLR, our QAAR can achieve " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11.63\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.89\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvements on the average hits@10 metrics of WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets respectively. And compared to the SOTA method NodePiece, our QAAR outperforms NodePiece by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.55\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.24\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.38\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " margins on these three datasets. Compared with previous SOTA GCN-based methods, such as GraIL, TACT, CoMPILE, ConGLR and NodePiece, the proposed QAAR is able to capture richer transferable entity-independent features (e.g., relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features) to learn the inductive embeddings for the nodes in a subgraph. The experimental results demonstrate that our QAAR is superior to current SOTA models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 713, + 166, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 713, + 166, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 713, + 166, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this subsection, we perform an ablation study to investigate how each module in QAAR affects the performance. Specifically, for the node label" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 526, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing, we use relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features to label each node. To study the contributions of these labeling strategies, we construct three variant models: \"QAAR w/o R\" denotes the model removing relation-aware features from QAAR model, \"QAAR w/o S\" denotes the model without using structure-aware features, and \"QAAR w/o D\" denotes the model without using distance features. Moreover, we also investigate the effect of query-aware graph attention layers by replacing it with GCN layers and obtain a variant model \"QAAR w/o A\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4 and Table 5 show the experimental results of ablation study on the inductive datasets regarding the evaluation metric of hits@10. From the results, we can see that the performances of all variant models have decreased to some extent. This demonstrates all modules in QAAR play important roles for the performance improvement. Concretely, different components in QAAR have different effect on these inductive datasets. For WN18RR dataset, the structure-aware and distance features have more positive impact on the performance, while the relation-aware features have less positive impact and even slightly hurt the performance on v4 of WN18RR. This is because the relations in WN18RR express little entity type information. Take the most frequent relation \"hypernym\" in WN18RR as an example, we cannot infer the entity type for it. Instead, for FB15k-237 and NELL-995 datasets, the relations express more useful entity type information, which can help to improve the performance. Take the relation \"Place-of-Birth\" in FB15k-237 as an example, we can infer that the head entity of this relation is a person and the tail entity is a place. On average, all three types of features can contribute to the improvements of the performance. Moreover, the query-aware graph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14047" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 287, + 132 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 287, + 132 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 287, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 287, + 132 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
#Neg.WN18RRFB15k-237NELL-995
GraILQAARGraILQAARGraILQAAR
2035.825.78147.6611.6363.8715.85
5052.385.92244.7812.0879.1915.98
8066.675.98324.3312.2891.5516.21
12081.526.23427.2912.46107.0216.73
15093.076.25498.3212.53136.7316.85
", + "image_path": "d9a0134f7b108525bd508cc0d96ca3440eb65cc714108bf17e80cc28e9850c9e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL-995. \"#Neg.\" denotes the number of negative candidates to be ranked. The reasoning times are measured in seconds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "attention reasoning is also beneficial to relation prediction (QAAR vs. \"QAAR w/o A\"), which indicates that the query-aware graph attention layers can aggregate more relevant neighborhood information during reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 184, + 319 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 184, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 184, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.6 Efficiency Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we investigate the reasoning efficiency regarding the enclosing subgraph extraction vs. the opening subgraph extraction. We note that most previous inductive relation prediction models, such as CoMPILE (Mai et al., 2021), Meta-iKG (Zheng et al., 2021), TACT (Chen et al., 2021), ConGLR (Lin et al., 2022), are all based on the enclosing subgraph extraction on the basis of GraIL (Teru et al., 2020), and take more time to perform reasoning since they consider more additional mechanisms. Therefore, we choose GraIL as the representative baseline. Table 6 shows the reasoning time for different number of candidate triples on the version v1 of inductive test datasets extracted from WN18RR, FB15k-237 and NELL995. It can be seen that our QAAR can spend less reasoning time than the GraIL model on these three datasets. Specifically, when the number of negative candidates is 50, the reasoning time of QAAR is about 9x faster than GraIL on WN18RR, 20x faster on FB15k-237, 5x faster on NELL-995. We can also find that the reasoning time of GraIL will dramatically increases when the number of negative candidates increases. Different from GraIL, the reasoning time of our QAAR remains at a stable level for different number of candidates. The reason is that our QAAR is able to rank all candidates in one opening subgraph with one-time reasoning, while GraIL will extract a specific enclosing subgraph for every candidate and perform multiple reasoning on all these subgraphs. These empirical results verify the claim that our QAAR can perform more efficient reasoning than previous methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 527, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 527, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 527, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel query adaptive anchor representation (QAAR) model for inductive relation prediction. First, we develop a model to rank all candidate triples in one opening subgraph. Second, we design three types of query adaptive anchors for subgraphs and extract three kinds of entity-independent features including relation-aware, structure-aware and distance features, which are useful for inductive relation prediction. Finally, we use a query-aware graph attention model to perform inductive reasoning on subgraphs. The experimental results on 12 versions of inductive relation prediction datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed QAAR model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 312, + 365, + 325 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 312, + 365, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 312, + 365, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although our QAAR achieves better performance on inductive relation prediction, it still suffers from some limitations. First, for a give query we extract a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop subgraph without using any sampling method, which will require large GPU memory when the extracted subgraph is large. Second, our QAAR does not leverage logical rules to enhance the performance which has shown useful in previous methods (Lin et al., 2022). We believe that our method can be further improved by incorporating logical rules. We will leave these opening issues in the future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 405, + 527 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 405, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 405, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 527, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 527, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 527, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61972290 and 61972173, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. CCNU22QN015), and Wuhan Knowledge Innovation Project (No. 2022010801010278). This work was also supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, an NSERC CREATE award in ADERSIM6, the York Research Chairs (YRC) program and an ORFRE (Ontario Research Fund-Research Excellence) award in BRAIN Alliance7. We thank anonymous reviewers for their thorough review comments on this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 426, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 426, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 426, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6http://www.yorku.ca/adersim" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 401, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 401, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 401, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7http://brainalliance.ca" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14048" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 91, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 91, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 91, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 91, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivana Balazevic, Carl Allen, and Timothy M. Hospedales. 2019. Tucker: Tensor factorization for knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5184-5193." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt D. Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 10-12, 2008, pages 1247-1250. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 278, + 291, + 366 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 278, + 291, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 278, + 291, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013. Proceedings of a meeting held December 5-8, 2013, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 2787-2795." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 376, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 376, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 376, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linlin Chao, Jianshan He, Taifeng Wang, and Wei Chu. 2021. *PairRE: Knowledge graph embeddings via paired relation vectors*. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4360-4369. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 291, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiajun Chen, Huarui He, Feng Wu, and Jie Wang. 2021. Topology-aware correlations between relations for inductive link prediction in knowledge graphs. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6271-6278. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 607, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 607, + 291, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 607, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingyang Chen, Wen Zhang, Yushan Zhu, Hongting Zhou, Zonggang Yuan, Changliang Xu, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Meta-knowledge transfer for inductive knowledge graph embedding. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 927-937. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2D knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mikhail Galkin, Etienne G. Denis, Jiapeng Wu, and William L. Hamilton. 2022. Nodepiece: Compositional and parameter-efficient representations of large knowledge graphs. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 234 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Johannes Hoffart, Fabian M. Suchanek, Klaus Berberich, and Gerhard Weikum. 2013. YAGO2: A spatially and temporally enhanced knowledge base from wikipedia. Artif. Intell., 194:28-61." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 307, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 307, + 525, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 307, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N. Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick van Kleef, Soren Auer, and Christian Bizer. 2015. Dbpedia - A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 382, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 382, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 382, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junzhuo Li and Deyi Xiong. 2022. Kafsp: Knowledge-aware fuzzy semantic parsing for conversational question answering over a large-scale knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 461-473." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 525, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qika Lin, Jun Liu, Fangzhi Xu, Yudai Pan, Yifan Zhu, Lingling Zhang, and Tianzhe Zhao. 2022. Incorporating context graph with logical reasoning for inductive relation prediction. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 893-903. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Farzaneh Mahdisoltani, Joanna Biega, and Fabian M. Suchanek. 2015. YAGO3: A knowledge base from multilingual wikimedia. In CIDR 2015, Seventh Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, Asilomar, CA, USA, January 4-7, 2015, Online Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sijie Mai, Shuangjia Zheng, Yuedong Yang, and Haifeng Hu. 2021. Communicative message passing for inductive relation reasoning. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 4294-4302. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christian Meilicke, Manuel Fink, Yanjie Wang, Daniel Ruffinelli, Rainer Gemulla, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2018. Fine-grained evaluation of rule- and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14049" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "embedding-based systems for knowledge graph completion. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2018 - 17th International Semantic Web Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, October 8-12, 2018, Proceedings, Part I, volume 11136 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 3-20. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 291, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 291, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 291, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deepak Nathani, Jatin Chauhan, Charu Sharma, and Manohar Kaul. 2019. Learning attention-based embeddings for relation prediction in knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 4710-4723." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 318 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ali Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. DRUM: end-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 15321-15331." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. RotatE: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Komal K. Teru, Etienne G. Denis, and William L. Hamilton. 2020. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9448-9457. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 291, + 551 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 291, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 291, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kristina Toutanova, Danqi Chen, Patrick Pantel, Hoifung Poon, Pallavi Choudhury, and Michael Gamon. 2015. Representing text for joint embedding of text and knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1499-1509." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 558, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 558, + 291, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 558, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shikhar Vashisht, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Composition-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wiki-data: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM, 57(10):78-85." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 771 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junkang Wu, Wentao Shi, Xuezhi Cao, Jiawei Chen, Wenqiang Lei, Fuzheng Zhang, Wei Wu, and Xiangnan He. 2021. DisenKGAT: Knowledge graph embedding with disentangled graph attention network. In in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2021, Virtual Event, Queensland, Australia, November 1 - 5, 2021, pages 2140-2149. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huiru Xiao, Xin Liu, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Y. Wong, and Simon See. 2022. Complex hyperbolic knowledge graph embeddings with fast fourier transform. CoRR, abs/2211.03635." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiwen Xie, Guangyou Zhou, Jin Liu, and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2020. ReInceptionE: Relation-aware inception network with joint local-global structural information for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5929-5939." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenyan Xiong, Russell Power, and Jamie Callan. 2017a. Explicit semantic ranking for academic search via knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 1271-1279. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhan Xiong, Thien Hoang, and William Yang Wang. 2017b. Deeppath: A reinforcement learning method for knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 564-573. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 441, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 441, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 441, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2319-2328." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 514, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 514, + 525, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 514, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ningyu Zhang, Qianghuai Jia, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hongbin Ye, Hui Chen, Huaixiao Tou, Gang Huang, Zhao Wang, Nengwei Hua, and Huajun Chen. 2021. AliCG: Fine-grained and evolvable conceptual graph construction for semantic search at alibaba. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 3895-3905. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongqi Zhang, Zhanke Zhou, Quanming Yao, and Yong Li. 2022. KGTuner: Efficient hyper-parameter search for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14050" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 2, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2715-2735." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuangjia Zheng, Sijie Mai, Ya Sun, Haifeng Hu, and Yuedong Yang. 2021. Subgraph-aware few-shot inductive link prediction via meta-learning. CoRR, abs/2108.00954." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14051" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 185, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 185, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 185, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 6 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 208, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 208, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 208, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 194, + 132, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 194, + 132, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 194, + 132, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 130, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 130, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 130, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 306, + 140, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 306, + 140, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 306, + 140, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 208, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 208, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 343, + 208, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 419, + 140, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 419, + 140, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 419, + 140, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 208, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 208, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 482, + 208, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 532, + 208, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 532, + 208, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 532, + 208, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 235, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 235, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 235, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix A. Statistic of Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 123, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 123, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 123, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 712, + 140, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 712, + 140, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 712, + 140, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14052" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 141, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 141, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 141, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 141, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 141, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 141, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 208, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 208, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 208, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 520, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14053" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_content_list.json b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd476d375eaac6b86222e62d5e7f3aa29d5c72f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2310 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning by Analogy: Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 147, + 80, + 847, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zihao Zhou *♠", + "bbox": [ + 231, + 129, + 366, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Maizhen Ning *♠", + "bbox": [ + 408, + 130, + 564, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qiufeng Wang", + "bbox": [ + 601, + 130, + 741, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jie Yao", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 148, + 284, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wei Wang", + "bbox": [ + 322, + 148, + 428, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xiaowei Huang", + "bbox": [ + 467, + 148, + 603, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kaizhu Huang", + "bbox": [ + 655, + 148, + 800, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\spadesuit$ School of Advanced Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong-liverpool University", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 164, + 789, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\\* University of Liverpool", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 181, + 473, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\nabla$ Duke Kunshan University", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 181, + 737, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{Zihao.Zhou22, Maizhen.Ning16, Jie.Yao22}@student.xjtlu.edu.cn, {Qiufeng.Wang, Wei.Wang03}@xjtlu.edu.cn,", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 200, + 880, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "xiaowei.huang@liverpool.ac.uk, kaizhu.huang@dukekunshan.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 252, + 217, + 732, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 341, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Solving math word problem (MWP) with AI techniques has recently made great progress with the success of deep neural networks (DNN), but it is far from being solved. We argue that the ability of learning by analogy is essential for an MWP solver to better understand same problems which may typically be formulated in diverse ways. However most existing works exploit the shortcut learning to train MWP solvers simply based on samples with a single question. In lack of diverse questions, these methods merely learn shallow heuristics. In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by generating diverse yet consistent questions/equations. Given a typical MWP including the scenario description, question, and equation (i.e., answer), we first generate multiple consistent equations via a group of heuristic rules. We then feed them to a question generator together with the scenario to obtain the corresponding diverse questions, forming a new MWP with a variety of questions and equations. Finally we engage a data filter to remove those unreasonable MwPs, keeping the high-quality augmented ones. To evaluate the ability of learning by analogy for an MWP solver, we generate a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method can generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, further leading to performance improvement on DiverseMath23K. The code and dataset is available at: https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 275, + 460, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 797, + 258, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Solving Math Word Problem (MWP) aims to infer a mathematical equation and final answer from the natural language description of a math problem. Table 1(a) shows one typical MWP example. In this", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 887 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(a) Original Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 514, + 253, + 593, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants. How much did it cost to make these uniforms?", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 266, + 890, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation: $\\mathrm{x} = {40} * \\left( {{15} + {10}}\\right)$", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 284, + 626, + 293 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(b) Back Translation Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 297, + 645, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text: The school produces uniforms for 40 students at $15 per shirt and$ 10 per pants.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 309, + 877, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How much does it cost to make these uniforms?", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 319, + 717, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation: $\\mathrm{x} = {40} * \\left( {{15} + {10}}\\right)$", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 329, + 626, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(c) Diverse Questions Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 341, + 665, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scenario description: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 354, + 889, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question1: How much did it cost to make a uniform?", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 373, + 739, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question2: How much did it cost to make these shirts? Equation2: $x = 40 * 15$", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 382, + 860, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question3: How much did it cost to make these pants?", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 391, + 744, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation1: $x = 15 + 10$", + "bbox": [ + 766, + 373, + 862, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation2: $x = 40 * 15$", + "bbox": [ + 766, + 382, + 860, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation3: $x = 40 * 10$", + "bbox": [ + 766, + 391, + 860, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Examples of math word problem (MWP) generation by different methods. (a) original MWP, (b) MWP generated by back translation method (Kumar et al., 2022), (c) MWP with diverse questions generated by our method. The questions are highlighted by red color in the texts of (a) and (b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 884, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "task, the machine needs to extract relevant information from natural language texts and perform mathematical reasoning, which is challenging. With the boom of deep neural networks (DNN), the research of solving MWP has recently made great progress. For example, Seq2Seq models (Wang et al., 2017; Xie and Sun, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a) as well as pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Tan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Liang et al., 2022) have been extensively exploited to deal with MWP, and increase the prediction accuracy significantly. However, such models are usually in lack of the ability of learning by analogy due to the limited data size and problem diversity. Therefore, current approaches unfortunately have reached their performance bottleneck (Zhang et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Sundaram et al., 2022), showing that much remains to be done.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 530, + 884, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To alleviate this limitation, recent focus has been put on how to augment high-quality data for MwPs. Along this line, there have been some proposals (Jen et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2022a; Kumar et al., 2022). Though demonstrating encouraging results,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Equal contribution", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 892, + 277, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Corresponding author", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 904, + 297, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11091", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 11091-11104", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 774, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 959, + 700, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "these current practices only consider word-level or sentence-level alternative expressions of the original problem, owing to the rigorous requirement in logic and numerical quantity. As illustrated in Table 1(b), the back translation augmentation method (Kumar et al., 2022) generates less diverse data sharing very limited semantic differences from the original counterpart. On the other hand, Yang et al. (2022) publish a diverse MWP dataset (called UnbiasedMWP), which was collected by manual annotation with huge cost but the size is limited.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by automatically generating multiple diverse yet consistent questions (together with their corresponding equations), as illustrated in Table 1(c). There are two main reasons for this augmentation strategy. (1) Training on less diverse data would lead the solver to learn shallow heuristics only, whilst deep semantics are preferred in order to better understand the problems (Patel et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2022). Consequently, when the question is changed (i.e., Question1,2,3 in Table 1(c)), the learned solver may not be able to solve MWP properly. (2) Our augmentation strategy could generate challenging and diverse MwPs. Training on such data would improve the ability of learning by analogy, which is essential for an MWP solver to deeply understand the problem. It is also beneficial to reduce the unreasonable case (Patel et al., 2021) that some current solvers still can predict the Equation even without any question (e.g., removing the question in the text of Table 1(a)).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 269, + 490, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Motivated by these findings, we propose a Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF) to generate high-quality and diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. Our DQGF consists of three components as shown in Figure 1. (1) Diverse Equations Generator: It generates diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP based on two generation strategies. Specifically, we propose a sub-equation based strategy that extracts sub-equations from the original equation, and a unit based strategy that generates equations according to the units (e.g., \"dollars\" in Table 1) in the scenario description. (2) Equation-aware Question Generator: Given a scenario description and generated equation, it generates a corresponding question. For example, given the Scenario description and Equation1 in Table 1(c), it can generate Question1. In details, we utilize two encoders to extract the information of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scenario description and equation respectively, and design an interaction mechanism which exploits numbers as a bridge to fuse the information of both encoders. (3) Data Filter: A large-scale MwP pre-trained language model (Liang et al., 2022) is leveraged to filter unreasonable data. As such, we can generate many high-quality and diverse MwP samples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Extensive experiments on the existing dataset UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022) show that our proposed DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, thus increasing the accuracy of the MWP solver. To further verify the effectiveness of the DQGF, we produce a new dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions from the current benchmark dataset Math23K (Wang et al., 2017). We also propose a new Group-accuracy metric on all questions of a problem. Experimental results show that DQGF can effectively improve the overall performance of the solver on DiverseMath23K, demonstrating its ability of learning by analogy. In summary, our contributions are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 214, + 885, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We propose a novel diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to generate such data in MWP.", + "- We propose a Diverse Equations Generator, consisting of sub-equations based and unit based strategy to generate diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP.", + "- We propose an Equation-aware Question Generator to generate a question from the given scenario and equation. It consists of two encoders to encode scenario and equation respectively where an interaction mechanism is developed to fuse the information.", + "- We produce a new MWP dataset (called DiiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K.", + "- Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver on both UnbiasedMWP and DiverseMath23K." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 470, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11092", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fae1780589ee3bc46c493d890f8316d1a2369b6793c41766fa9cec203866eeec.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: An overview of DQGF. Each generated equation from the Diverse Equations Generator and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained Equation-aware Question Generator to generate corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations and form a new MWP. Finally, the candidate MwPs are further filtered using the Data Filter." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 848, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 270, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data Augmentation: Data augmentation has been widely used in various NLP tasks (Feng et al., 2021), but there are few works for MWP. Recently, some MWP data augmentation methods have been proposed. For example, Kumar et al. (2021) reorder the problem description like moving the question at the start. Furthermore, they paraphrase sentences by a paraphrasing model and preserve the entities of the original sentence to keep the theme unchanged. Kumar et al. (2022) further propose back translation, synonym replacement, and named-entity replacement to augment data. Li et al. (2022a) and Liu et al. (2021a) transform the declarative sentence into the question sentence and reverse the operation of expression to generate MwPs. These methods effectively improve the performance of MWP solvers. But most of them are rule-based and augment data with limited semantic differences from the original data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 395, + 489, + 701 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MWP Solver: Recent proposals intend to solve the problem by using sequence or tree generation models. Wang et al. (2017) present a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) approach to generate the mathematical equation. Xie and Sun (2019) propose a goal-driven tree-structured (GTS) model to generate the equation tree. This sequence-to-tree approach significantly improves the performance over the traditional seq2seq approaches. Zhang et al. (2020a) adopt a graph-to-tree approach to model the quality relations using graph convolutional networks (GCN). Applying pre-trained language models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) was shown", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to benefit the tree expression generation substantially. Prior study (Patel et al., 2021) indicates that existing MWP solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations. As such, they could not solve different questions of the same MWP well and even ignore the question. Our DQGF effectively helps the solver overcome these issues.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 884, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MWP Generation: MWP generation approaches can be divided into three categories: template-based approaches, rewriting-based approaches, and neural network-based approaches. Template-based approaches usually follow a similar two-stage process: they first generalize an existing problem into a template or a skeleton and then generate the MWP sentences from the templates (Williams, 2011; Polozov et al., 2015). Rewriting-based approaches target the MWP generation problem by editing existing human-written MWP sentences to change their theme but the underlying story (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Moon-Rembert and Gilbert, 2019). Recent attempts have been focused on exploiting neural network-based approaches that generate MwPs from equations and topics in an end-to-end manner (Liyanage and Ranathunga, 2020; Liu et al., 2021b; Wang et al., 2021). Unlike these generation methods, our equation-aware question generator focuses on generating questions that are in line with the given scenario and match the given equation. Recently, Shridhar et al. (2022) have also proposed a generation model to implement this function, but main differences exist: (1) Their work focuses on generating goal-driven", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 500, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11093", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sub-questions without equations, which is used in prompt learning instead of a general data augmentation tool. (2) While their generator directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence to encode and fuse their information, the structure of equation is much different from the scenario texts. We propose two different encoders where an interaction mechanism is designed to leverage numbers as a bridge to fuse the information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MWP Dataset: Several datasets are proposed to evaluate the model's numerical reasoning ability (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Amini et al., 2019; Miao et al., 2020). They only provide a single question to each scenario. Therefore, training and evaluating on such setting will lead that the solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations (Patel et al., 2021). To mitigate this learning bias, Yang et al. (2022) propose a diverse MwP dataset (called UnbiasedMwP). However, manually collecting high-quality datasets is usually labor-intensive and time-consuming in practice. In contrast, our DQGF could automatically generate such diverse data. In this paper, we will use UnbiasedMwP to train equation-aware question generator and evaluate the whole DQGF. Besides, we also propose a diverse MwP dataset DiverseMath23k to evaluate the MwP solver.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 258, + 490, + 548 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 563, + 263, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1 shows the overview of the proposed Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF). We firstly put the original MWP into the Diverse Equations Generator to generate diverse equations, then the generated equation and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained equation-aware question generator to produce corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations, forming new candidate MwPs. Finally, these candidate MwPs are further filtered by the data filter. In what follows, we will introduce Diverse Equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator, and Data Filter respectively in Section 3.1, Section 3.2, and Section 3.3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 592, + 489, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Diverse Equations Generator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 389, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Diverse equations generator aims to generate diverse equations from the original MWP. Our principle is to generate as many as possible logical", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "equations. Motivated by this, we propose two equation generation strategies: sub-equation based and unit based strategy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sub-equation Based The equation of the original MWP usually includes some sub-equations, which represent the necessary steps to solve the problem (Cobbe et al., 2021). For instance, in Table 1(c), \"15+10\" is a sub-equation of the original equation, describing a uniform's price. Therefore, we extract these sub-equations from the original equation, which are very high-quality and diverse.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 140, + 884, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unit Based There are some physical relations between the numbers in an MWP. We could identify these relations, and then combine numbers with operators to get a new equation. Motivated by this, we propose to search the relations of numbers based on their units. Every number in MWPs has its unit. For example in Table 1, \"40\" has the unit \"students\" and \"15\" has the unit \"dollars\". We combine them in two situations. (1) Same unit: Two numbers with same unit always represent the same object. We combine them with the operator \"+\" to generate equations representing the totality questions like \"what is the total of A and B\". Besides, we combine them with \"-\" and \"/\" which represent the comparison questions like \"how much more A than B\" and \"how many times A than B\", respectively. (2) Different units: Two numbers with different units in a MWP always represent two objects that have subordinate relations. Therefore, we combine them with \"*\". This strategy will generate diverse equations, though it probably brings some unreasonable equations further generating noisy MWPs. Such noisy MWPs will be filtered by the final data filter.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 277, + 884, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To be noted, both sub-equation based and unit based strategies rely on heuristic rules. Therefore, we do not need to train our diverse equations generator.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 664, + 884, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Equation-aware Question Generator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 737, + 843, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "General question generation in the Question-Answering area aims to generate a question from a given passage and a specified answer (Sun et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). By regarding the scenario description and equation as passage and answer respectively, we can formulate our task as a general question generation problem. Based on this, we propose an equation-aware question generator under a general encoder-decoder framework as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, we", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11094", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f237cfa8cffbebf80d048e18b0d4e7dc0249ee47d674e9f5d9e89b1c1b976b92.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Equation-aware Question Generator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 487, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "propose two different encoders to encode the information from scenario and equation respectively, and an interaction mechanism to fuse their information further. For convenience, we form a MWP as $(S,Q,E)$ , where $S$ , $Q$ and $E$ represent the scenario, question and their solution equation respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 326, + 489, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scenario Encoder We adopt a pre-trained language model BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as our scenario encoder. The unsupervised pre-training on large corpora makes the model capture linguistic knowledge, which provides rich textual representations. We represent the scenario $S$ as a sequence of $T$ tokens: $S = [s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_T]$ , and formulate the encoding process as", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 489, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \\dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \\right] = B E R T \\left(\\left[ s _ {1}, s _ {2}, \\dots , s _ {T} \\right]\\right), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 586, + 487, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $h_i^s$ represents the embedding of token $s_i$ from the encoder. Finally, the representation of scenario can be written as $H^s$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 487, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nH ^ {s} = \\left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \\dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \\right]. \\qquad (2)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 215, + 671, + 487, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation Encoder The sequence form cannot model the structure of the equation well (Xie and Sun, 2019). Hence we transform it into an equation tree which is then encoded by a TreeLSTM (Tai et al., 2015). The equation is transformed into a binary tree representation as proposed in (Xie and Sun, 2019) and sequentialized as their pre-order traversal. Thus the equation can be represented as $E = [e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_n]$ , where $n$ is the length of the pre-order equation and a node $e_i$ represents a number or operator $(+,-,*,/ )$ . In details, we firstly adopt a BERT to encode each node:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 699, + 489, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nx _ {i} = B E R T \\left(e _ {i}\\right). \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 903, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, we encode the equation tree by a TreeLSTM:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh _ {i} ^ {e} = \\operatorname {T r e e L S T M} \\left(x _ {i}, \\sum_ {k \\in C (i)} h _ {k} ^ {e}\\right), \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 111, + 882, + 161 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $C(i)$ represents the index set of child nodes of $e_i$ . Finally, the representation of equation can be written as $H^{e}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 172, + 882, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nH ^ {e} = \\left[ h _ {1} ^ {e}, h _ {2} ^ {e}, \\dots , h _ {n} ^ {e} \\right]. \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 611, + 233, + 882, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interaction Mechanism In order to generate a question based on both scenario and equation, the interaction between them is crucial. Inspired by iterative deep learning (He and Schomaker, 2019; Schick and Schütze, 2021), we propose an interaction mechanism which uses numbers as bridge to fuse the information of both scenario and equation. It consists of the following two processes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 263, + 882, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scenario to Equation: After BERT encodes the whole scenario text, each token's embedding has the scenario's context information. For a number appearing in both scenario and equation, we replace its embedding in Equation (3) with its embedding in Equation (1). In this way, the scenario's context information is brought into the equation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 393, + 882, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation to Scenario: After bringing the information of the scenario to the equation and encoding the equation tree, we put the embedding of the number in the equation back into the scenario representation. In detail, we replace its embedding in Equation (1) with its embedding in Equation (4).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 506, + 884, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Decoder We adopt the pre-trained language model BertGeneraiton (Rothe et al., 2020) as our decoder. Representing a question $Q$ as a sequence of $m$ tokens: $Q = [q_{1}, q_{2}, \\dots, q_{m}]$ , the token $q_{i}$ is generated as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 611, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nq _ {i} = \\text {B e r t G e n e r a t i o n} ([ H, q _ {i - 1} ]), \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 559, + 703, + 882, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $H$ is the final representation of the scenario and equation by the concatenating the $H_{s}$ and $H_{e}$ as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nH = \\left[ H _ {s}, H _ {e} \\right]. \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 636, + 782, + 882, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To be noted, all of these pre-trained models in both encoders and decoders will be fine-tuned in the MwP dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 807, + 882, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Data Filter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 643, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Filtering out detrimental augmented data can improve the quality of data as well as the downstream", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11095", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance (Le Bras et al., 2020). However, it will take a great cost to do it by the human filtering due to the large-size of our augmented data. Therefore, we utilize an existing powerful MWP solver as an expert model to judge whether the predicted answer is same as the ground-truth (Axelrod et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2021). Inspired by Ou et al. (2022), we leverage a large-scale MWP pre-trained language model MWP-BERT (Liang et al., 2022) as our expert model, utilizing its powerful generalization ability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Considering our generated MwPs have many new diverse questions, it is difficult for an existing solver to predict the answer accurately, resulting in many false filtering cases. To increase the recall on the generated samples, we apply beam-search strategy on the expert model to select top $k$ predicted equations (We set $k = 5$ in our experiments). Since the final answer can be from different solutions (Yang et al., 2022), we compare the answer calculated by equations instead of comparing equations directly. The augmented MwPs will pass our final filter if its final answer is equal to one answer from the selected top $k$ equations predicted by the expert model.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 263, + 489, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 502, + 260, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Dataset and experimental setting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 530, + 420, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dataset We conduct experiments on an existing diverse questions dataset: UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022), which is split into 2,507, 200, 200 MWP groups for training, validation, and testing, respectively. Each group contains one original MWP and additional 1 to 8 diverse questions and equations with the same scenario. In total, it has 8,895, 684, 685 MwPs for training, validation, and testing, respectively. In this paper, we train our Equation-aware Question Generator and evaluate the whole DQGF on it.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 552, + 489, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation Metrics For the whole DQGF, we apply the accuracy of a MWP solver to evaluate the quality of generated data. Without loss of generality, we choose GTS (Xie and Sun, 2019) with BERTEncoder (Devlin et al., 2019) as the MWP solver. Furthermore, we also propose a metric of Group-Accuracy to consider the prediction accuracy on all diverse questions in a MWP. For example, in Table 1(c), the normal accuracy simply regards it as three samples by evaluation of each question separately, while our Group-Accuracy consid-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/15e71fa960a34cf70361e89183a3c0a573c5f074ab4988de8c16acab9fddeac1.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DataAccuracyGroup-Accuracy
Unbiased-source34.929.5
Unbiased-DQGF62.742.0
Unbiased-GT78.464.0
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 80, + 884, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Comparison of the accuracy (\\%) of solver training on different data: Unbiased-source means the original MwPs of each group in UnbiasedMWP, Unbiased-DQGF means generated MwPs with diverse questions by our DQGF, Unbiased-GT means MwPs with the annotated diverse questions and equations, indicating the up-bounded performance of our DQGF.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 154, + 884, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ers this as only one sample and if all three equations are predicted correctly then the prediction is correct. Comparing to the common accuracy, the proposed Group-Accuracy can evaluate an solver whether truly understanding an MWP with the ability of learning by analogy. For the equation-aware question generator, we report BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L(Lin, 2004) which are based on exact word overlapping. BERT F1 score (Zhang et al., 2020b) is also used, which is based on DeBERTa (He et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 282, + 885, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 475, + 726, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the quality of generated data by the results of a common MWP solver on both accuracy and group-accuracy. In details, we train the MWP solver on three different data: the original data of each group in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-source), our generated MwPs data from the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-DQGF), and ground-truth MwPs in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-GT). Notably, the Unbiased-source only has MwPs with single question, while the latter two have MwPs with diverse questions. Since the Unbiased-GT directly uses the annotated diverse questions, its performance can be regarded as the up-bounded of the generation method. The results are shown in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 499, + 884, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Table 2, we can see that training on the data augmented by DQGF can significantly improve the accuracy of solver from $34.9\\%$ to $62.7\\%$ . It indicates that DQGF can generate high quality MWP samples, which are useful for the training of a solver. In addition, the group-accuracy is also increased largely from $29.5\\%$ to $42\\%$ , even higher than the common accuracy $(34.9\\%)$ of Unbiased-source, showing that our method can generate MWP samples with valid diverse questions to help the solver better understand the problem by capturing", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11096", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/364b80424525990bf9c5b0d346a26efc1528a3d1aa4cd93eacb5d39ca4e5d487.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StrategyAccuracy
All62.7
(w/o)Sub-equations58.5
(w/o)Same unit47.3
(w/o)Different units60.4
", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 80, + 423, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cb42e87632908b4afd1e2637dc425712604bf7390c67565b38f2807d6b46370a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Comparison of different equations generation strategies." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsBLEUBERT F1ROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-L
Baseline52.387.477.259.470.6
EQG(w/o)IM54.287.978.461.472.0
EQG60.589.781.466.777.4
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 211, + 489, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Comparison of the different questions generator models. The baseline directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence. EQG means the Equation-aware Question Generator, while EQG(w/o)IM means removing Interaction Mechanism.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 266, + 487, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing the ability of learning by analogy. Comparing the Unbiased-DQGF and Unbiased-GT, we can see that there is still a gap between our method and the manual labelling data. Manual annotation method can produce more diverse and completely correct data, which leads to the better performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 487, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Fine-grained Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 332, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we will show the performance of the three components in our DQGF individually.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 487, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Diverse Equations Generator Table 3 shows the comparison results among different equations generation strategies. As observed, each strategy can generate high quality and meaningful diverse equations. Concretely, the same unit based generation strategy brings the most benefit to DQGF because such strategy can generate a lot of meaningful but less noisy equations. The sub-equations based strategy and different units based strategy can also effectively generate meaningful equations, but with little improvement to the solver. There are two reasons: 1) The sub-equations based strategy can not generate enough equations since the sub-equations in the original equation are limited; and 2) The different units based strategy generates meaningful equations while bringing many noisy equations, which are thus hard to be filtered completely.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 489, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation-aware Question Generator We compare one baseline method that directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence (Shridhar et al., 2022) and utilizes BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as encoder, and BertGeneration (Rothe et al., 2020)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c334a70ec9c41cf26e9fb29cc8725264023bc65671fb9f80ce8b31575263e02e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Different beamsize $k$ of expert model in Filter." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 547, + 80, + 847, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "as decoder. Table 4 reports the comparison of the different questions generator models. We can see that EQG(w/o)IM improves the performance of baseline method. It indicates that the scenario encoder and equation encoder can better encode the structure of scenario and equation respectively than directly encoding their concatenated sequence. By integrating the interaction mechanism (IM), we can observe that it leads to a great improvement, achieving the best performance on every metric, which demonstrates that our interaction mechanism can fuse the information of scenario and equation well. Specifically, the BLEU score is $60.5\\%$ which is not high; this is however explainable as it is a metric about text overlap. As observed, though semantically identical, some of our generated data is less overlap with the ground truth. This can also be reflected by its higher BERT F1 score which measures the semantic similarity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 260, + 884, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data Filter We examine the effect of beamsize $k$ of the filter in DQGF, which is shown in Figure 3. The experimental results show that DQGF can obtain the best performance when $k$ is 5. DQFG can achieve good performance when $k$ is between 4 and 6, since this appears to be a suitable interval in that a lot of correct candidates can pass the filter. When $k$ is between 1 and 3, filtering is still accurate but some correct data are filtered out. Therefore this interval can achieve competitive but not the best performance. When $k$ is between 7 and 8, the filtering is inaccurate. It causes that some noisy data pass the filter and impacts the final data quality.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 882, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 New MWP dataset DiverseMath23K", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 800, + 840, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We apply our trained DQGF model on Math23k to create a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions, which contains 38,320, 1,255, 1,728 MWPs for training, validation, and testing respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 821, + 882, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To ensure the quality of DiverseMath23k, we", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11097", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7ff0badee2f7787bb7bfbbd741e1495bab88fde428790273cdee2641becd67f8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DataAccuracyGroup-AccuracyDeq-Accuracy
Ori63.656.969.4
Diverse68.460.248.1
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 485, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original MWP:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 124, + 191, + 221, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The candy in the mall costs 14.60 dollars per box and cookies cost 29.80 dollars per box. Uncle Li wants to buy 4 boxes of candy and 2 boxes of cookies. Please calculate how much money Uncle Li needs to bring?", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 203, + 487, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation: $x = (14.6^{*}4) + (29.8^{*}2)$", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 250, + 304, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generated Data:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 126, + 263, + 226, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: how many dollars it will cost to buy the cookies?", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 275, + 457, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation: $x = 29.8^{*}2$", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 288, + 240, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation type: sub-equation, different units", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 300, + 369, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: how much more expensive each box of cookies is than each box of candy?", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 313, + 448, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation: $x = 29.8 - 14.6$", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 337, + 255, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation type: same unit", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 349, + 268, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: how many times the price of each box of candy is the price of each box of cookies?", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 362, + 460, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation: $x = 14.6 / 29.8$", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 386, + 260, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Equation type: same unit", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 398, + 268, + 410 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Generated diverse questions with equations and their corresponding equation types", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 485, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "manually check generated MwPs, which is much easier and more efficient than complete human annotation. For the validation and test set, to make the evaluation rational, we rigorously check and correct each sample by ourselves. For the training set, we randomly check parts of samples and find that our generated MwPs are also meaningful and credible. The final dataset is available at https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 487, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results We compare the performance of the solver training on original Math23k and DiverseMath23k. In addition to the accuracy and Group-Accuracy, we report the Deq-Accuracy (Patel et al., 2021), which is a metric measuring the question sensitivity. The lower the Deq-Accuracy, the better the question sensitivity. Concretely, it measures the accuracy that the solver predicts the answer of a MWP by deleting questions (i.e., only input scenario). A better solver should have higher question sensitivity, thus a lower Deq-Accuracy is expected.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 487, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results are shown in Table 5. We can see that the accuracy can be improved from $63.6\\%$ to $68.4\\%$ , and Group-Accuracy is boosted from $56.9\\%$ to $60.2\\%$ . These results indicate that Di-verseMath23k can enable the model to better understand MwPs and improve its ability to solve different questions in the same scenario, even our", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 807, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e75f2198defd84a249d730157ffcf5dc22dd1b11f57d763633c30e321010cc50.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Performance of solvers training on different data. Ori and DQGF means the original Math23k and DiverseMath23k, respectively." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Scenario: A factory produce 3000 parts, 750 in the first 6 days and the rest in 15 daysOriDiverse
Question1: How many will be produced on average per day in the future? (original question) Equation1: x=(3000-750)/15TrueTrue
Question2: How many more will be produced? Equation2: x=3000-750FalseTrue
Question3: What is the average number of parts produced per day for the first 6 days? Equation3: x=750/6FalseTrue
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 80, + 892, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Prediction results of solvers training on different data: Ori means original Math23k, and Diverse means DiverseMath23k.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 206, + 882, + 248 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "training set possibly contains many noisy samples. Additionally, it is noted that our method can significantly reduce the Deq-accuracy from $69.4\\%$ to $48.1\\%$ . It indicates that DiverseMath23k effectively improves the question sensitivity of the solver.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 882, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 643, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generated Data Analysis Table 6 shows some real cases generated by our DQGF. We can see that our Diverse Equation Generator generate multiple meaningful equations. Moreover, the same unit based strategy can generate the most. After getting the diverse equations, our Equation-aware Question Generator successfully generates corresponding questions that match the scenario and equations. In particular, Equation-aware Question Generator works well in relating objects with their corresponding numbers. Therefore the appearance order of objects in questions are not reversed. Finally, these correct MwPs can successfully pass the data filter. More generated samples are shown in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 882, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prediction Results Analysis Table 7 reports the prediction result of solvers trained on different data. The solver trained on the original Math23k can correctly solve Question1, which has a similar MWP in training. However, it cannot solve Question2, which is simpler than Question1. Moreover, it cannot solve other questions like Question3. It indicates that the solver merely learns shallow heuristics but failing to understand the MWP. When trained on DiverseMath23k, the solver would gain the ability of learning by analogy, i.e., the solver could solve different questions even if the question is changed (see Question2, and Question3).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 639, + 882, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion and Future Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 860, + 794, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we explore the ability of learning by analogy for MWP solvers. To do this, we propose a", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11098", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a give MWP, which consists of Diverse equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator and Data Filter. Based on the trained DQGF, we further produce a new MWP dataset (DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions. Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the future, we will focus on optimizing the model in the solver to improve its ability of learning by analogy and increase the group accuracy on the MwPs with diverse questions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 261, + 489, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 338, + 220, + 353 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our DQGF still exists some limitations. While our generated data improves performance in diverse questions settings, there is still some noise in the generated data that affects the performance of original single question. In the following, we will give the limitations of our DQGF on its three components.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 489, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The diversity of the question depends on the diversity of the equations. Our equation generator is based on heuristic rules, resulting that the generated equations are very simple. In the future, we will try a model based equations generator to generate more diverse equations. In the question generator, it can only recognise equations with the operator \"+\" due to the limited operator set in our training dataset UnbiasedMWP. In the future we will expand the operators so that the generation model can recognise more operators and be more universal. Filtering strategy is also important. Using the answers of expert model as a criterion for evaluation still exists bias and leads to the noisy data. In fact, we have tried to generate more diverse equations but all are filtered by the current data filter. We will look for better filtering strategies in the future.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 478, + 489, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 780, + 285, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) no.62276258, Jiangsu Science and Technology Programme (Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province) no. BE2020006-4, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University's Key Program Special Fund no. KSF-T-06, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "novation programme no. 956123, and UK EPSRC under projects [EP/T026995/1].", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 143, + 608, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. MathQA: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2357-2367, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Amittai Axelrod, Xiaodong He, and Jianfeng Gao. 2011. Domain adaptation via pseudo in-domain data selection. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 355-362.", + "K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*.", + "Steven Y. Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for NLP. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP* 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 968–988. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net.", + "Sheng He and Lambert Schomaker. 2019. Deepotsu: Document enhancement and binarization using iterative deep learning. Pattern recognition, 91:379-390.", + "Tien-Yi Jen, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2021. Recycling numeracy data augmentation with symbolic verification for math word problem solving. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 653-657.", + "Yanghoon Kim, Hwanhee Lee, Joongbo Shin, and Kyomin Jung. 2019. Improving neural question generation using answer separation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 6602-6609." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 167, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11099", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Ioannis Konstas, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. A theme-rewriting approach for generating algebra word problems. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 1617-1628. The Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Subhro Roy, Aida Amini, Nate Kushman, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. Mawps: A math word problem repository. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1152-1157.", + "Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Adversarial examples for evaluating math word problem solvers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November; 2021, pages 2705-2712. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2022. Practice makes a solver perfect: Data augmentation for math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 4194-4206. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1078-1088. PMLR.", + "Ailisi Li, Yanghua Xiao, Jiaqing Liang, and Yunwen Chen. 2022a. Semantic-based data augmentation for math word problems. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 36-51. Springer.", + "Jingjing Li, Yifan Gao, Lidong Bing, Irwin King, and Michael R. Lyu. 2019. Improving question generation with to the point context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3214-3224. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhongli Li, Wenxuan Zhang, Chao Yan, Qingyu Zhou, Chao Li, Hongzhi Liu, and Yunbo Cao. 2022b. Seeking patterns, not just memorizing procedures: Contrastive learning for solving math word problems. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2486-2496. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhenwen Liang, Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Wei Qin, Yunshi Lan, Jie Shao, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2022. Mwp-bert: Numeracy-augmented pre-training for math word problem solving. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 997-1009.", + "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81.", + "Qianying Liu, Wenyu Guan, Sujian Li, Fei Cheng, Daisuke Kawahara, and Sadao Kurohashi. 2021a. Roda: Reverse operation based data augmentation for solving math word problems. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1-11.", + "Tianqiao Liu, Qiang Fang, Wenbiao Ding, Hang Li, Zhongqin Wu, and Zitao Liu. 2021b. Mathematical word problem generation from commonsense knowledge graph and equations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4225-4240.", + "Vijini Liyanage and Surangika Ranathunga. 2020. Multi-lingual mathematical word problem generation using long short term memory networks with enhanced input features. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4709-4716.", + "Shen-Yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 975-984.", + "DeKita G Moon-Rembert and Juan E Gilbert. 2019. Illmatics: A web-based math word problem generator for students' distal and proximal interests. In *E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education*, pages 842–848. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).", + "Jiao Ou, Jinchao Zhang, Yang Feng, and Jie Zhou. 2022. Counterfactual data augmentation via perspective transition for open-domain dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 1635-1648. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318.", + "Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11100", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Oleksandr Polozov, Eleanor O'Rourke, Adam M Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, Sumit Gulwani, and Zoran Popovic. 2015. Personalized mathematical word problem generation. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Sascha Rothe, Shashi Narayan, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2020. Leveraging pre-trained checkpoints for sequence generation tasks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:264-280.", + "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kumar Shridhar, Jakub Macina, Mennatallah El-Assady, Tanmay Sinha, Manu Kapur, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Automatic generation of socratic subquestions for teaching math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 4136-4149. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xingwu Sun, Jing Liu, Yajuan Lyu, Wei He, Yanjun Ma, and Shi Wang. 2018. Answer-focused and position-aware neural question generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3930-3939.", + "Sowmya S Sundaram, Sairam Gurajada, Marco Fisichella, Savitha Sam Abraham, et al. 2022. Why are nlp models fumbling at elementary math? a survey of deep learning based word problem solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15683.", + "Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1556-1566. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "Minghuan Tan, Lei Wang, Lingxiao Jiang, and Jing Jiang. 2021. Investigating math word problems using pretrained multilingual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08928.", + "Yan Wang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Shuming Shi. 2017. Deep neural solver for math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 845-854." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zichao Wang, Andrew S. Lan, and Richard G. Baraniuk. 2021. Math word problem generation with mathematical consistency and problem context constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5986-5999. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sandra Williams. 2011. Generating mathematical word problems. In 2011 AAAI Fall symposium series.", + "Shufang Xie, Ang Lv, Yingce Xia, Lijun Wu, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, and Rui Yan. 2021. Target-side input augmentation for sequence to sequence generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Zhipeng Xie and Shichao Sun. 2019. A goal-driven tree-structured neural model for math word problems. In *IJCAI*, pages 5299–5305.", + "Zhicheng Yang, Jinghui Qin, Jiaqi Chen, and Xiaodan Liang. 2022. Unbiased math word problems benchmark for mitigating solving bias. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1401-1408. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dongxiang Zhang, Lei Wang, Luming Zhang, Bing Tian Dai, and Heng Tao Shen. 2019. The gap of semantic parsing: A survey on automatic math word problem solvers. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(9):2287-2305.", + "Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Yi Bin, Yan Wang, Jie Shao, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2020a. Graph-to-tree learning for solving math word problems. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Generated data by DQGF", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 694, + 769, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 shows five examples of the generated data by DQGF. Original data is the MWP in dataset which only has single question for each scenario. Generated data is the diverse questions with equations on original data generated by our DQGF.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 720, + 882, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11101", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b2e0f34eda56b3b97004a28ea8922d565607f946b018922a5a6f8a0c751a4d30.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Original Data\nText: A pair of pants costs 58 dollars, and a jacket costs 4 times as much as a pair of pants.\nHow many dollars are spent on 5 sets of these clothes?\nEquation: x=5*(58+(58*4))
Generated Data\nQuestion: How much do a pair of pants and a jacket cost in total?\nEquation: x=58+58*4
Question: How much does a jacket cost?\nEquation: x=58*4
Original Data\nText: Dingding has read 180 pages of a book and has 150 pages left to read.\nHow many pages are there in this book?\nEquation: x=180+150
Generated Data\nQuestion: How many more pages have been read than have not been read?\nEquation: x=180-150
Question: How many times more pages have been read than have not been read?\nEquation: x=180/150
Original Data\nText: Qiangqiang's father and mother work outside. Father sends Qiangqiang 458 dollars a month and mother sends Qiangqiang 447 dollars a month. How much money do Qiangqiang's father and mother send to Qiangqiang each month?\nEquation: x=458+447
Generated Data\nQuestion: How much more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang each month than the father?\nEquation: x=447-458
Question: How many times more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang than the father each month?\nx=447/458
Question: How much more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother?\nEquation: x=458-447
Question: How many times more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother?\nEquation: x=458/447
Original Data\nText: Mom bought a toothbrush for 3.6 dollars and a box of toothpaste for 9.5 dollars. How much is a toothbrush cheaper than a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=9.5-3.6
Generated Data\nQuestion: What is the ratio of the price of a box of toothpaste to a toothbrush?\nEquation: x=9.5/3.6
Question: How much do a toothbrush and a box of toothpaste cost in total?\nEquation: x=3.6+9.5
Question: How much more expensive is a toothbrush than a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=3.6-9.5
What is the ratio of the price of a toothbrush to a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=3.6/9.5
Original Data\nText: A storybook has 438 pages and Xiao Liang has read 202 pages. How many pages does Xiao Liang have left to read?\nEquation: x=438-202
Generated Data\nQuestion: What is the ratio of the number of pages Xiao Liang has read to the total number of pages in the storybook?\nEquation: x=202/438
Question: How many times is the total number of pages in the storybook than the number of pages Xiao Liang has read?\nEquation: x=438/202
", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 80, + 769, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Five generated MWP samples with Original data and Generated diverse questions with equations by DQGF", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 906, + 880, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11102", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 6", + "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work will not bring risk in life.", + "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1", + "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 126, + 695, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 299, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section3.4", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 215, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section3,4", + "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The artifacts we used are publicly and do not have specially items.", + "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section3,4", + "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Our data is math problem data, does not contain any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content.", + "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section4", + "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4" + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 346, + 880, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 782, + 494, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is not important in our work", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 803, + 359, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? It is not important in our work because the model is lightweight.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 829, + 880, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 884, + 877, + 908 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11103", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 4", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 117, + 223, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 142, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section4", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 192, + 218, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 217, + 882, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section4", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 267, + 218, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 292, + 877, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section4", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 201, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 340, + 882, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our paper not involve any issue about that.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 374, + 472, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 399, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The data does not involve participants' demographic.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 448, + 544, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 474, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our data is publicly.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 523, + 299, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 549, + 875, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our data is about math problems", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 565, + 398, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 592, + 882, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is not important for our data.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 625, + 383, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11104", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_model.json b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5ace8e0f1a5791ac36c3b9ff859879f54b5c76d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2923 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.082, + 0.848, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning by Analogy: Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.232, + 0.13, + 0.368, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zihao Zhou *♠" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.41, + 0.131, + 0.565, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maizhen Ning *♠" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.603, + 0.131, + 0.742, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qiufeng Wang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.149, + 0.285, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jie Yao" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.323, + 0.149, + 0.429, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Wang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.468, + 0.149, + 0.604, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaowei Huang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.657, + 0.149, + 0.8, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaizhu Huang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.214, + 0.165, + 0.79, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\spadesuit\\) School of Advanced Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong-liverpool University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.265, + 0.182, + 0.474, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\* University of Liverpool" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.183, + 0.739, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\nabla\\) Duke Kunshan University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.201, + 0.882, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{Zihao.Zhou22, Maizhen.Ning16, Jie.Yao22}@student.xjtlu.edu.cn, {Qiufeng.Wang, Wei.Wang03}@xjtlu.edu.cn," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.253, + 0.218, + 0.734, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "xiaowei.huang@liverpool.ac.uk, kaizhu.huang@dukekunshan.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.342, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.277, + 0.461, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Solving math word problem (MWP) with AI techniques has recently made great progress with the success of deep neural networks (DNN), but it is far from being solved. We argue that the ability of learning by analogy is essential for an MWP solver to better understand same problems which may typically be formulated in diverse ways. However most existing works exploit the shortcut learning to train MWP solvers simply based on samples with a single question. In lack of diverse questions, these methods merely learn shallow heuristics. In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by generating diverse yet consistent questions/equations. Given a typical MWP including the scenario description, question, and equation (i.e., answer), we first generate multiple consistent equations via a group of heuristic rules. We then feed them to a question generator together with the scenario to obtain the corresponding diverse questions, forming a new MWP with a variety of questions and equations. Finally we engage a data filter to remove those unreasonable MwPs, keeping the high-quality augmented ones. To evaluate the ability of learning by analogy for an MWP solver, we generate a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method can generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, further leading to performance improvement on DiverseMath23K. The code and dataset is available at: https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.799, + 0.26, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.49, + 0.888 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Solving Math Word Problem (MWP) aims to infer a mathematical equation and final answer from the natural language description of a math problem. Table 1(a) shows one typical MWP example. In this" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.254, + 0.594, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Original Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.267, + 0.892, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants. How much did it cost to make these uniforms?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.285, + 0.628, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation: \\( \\mathrm{x} = {40} * \\left( {{15} + {10}}\\right) \\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.298, + 0.647, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Back Translation Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.31, + 0.878, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text: The school produces uniforms for 40 students at \\(15 per shirt and \\)10 per pants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.321, + 0.718, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How much does it cost to make these uniforms?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.33, + 0.628, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation: \\( \\mathrm{x} = {40} * \\left( {{15} + {10}}\\right) \\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.342, + 0.666, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Diverse Questions Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.355, + 0.89, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scenario description: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.374, + 0.741, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question1: How much did it cost to make a uniform?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.383, + 0.862, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question2: How much did it cost to make these shirts? Equation2: \\( x = 40 * 15 \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.392, + 0.746, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question3: How much did it cost to make these pants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.767, + 0.374, + 0.863, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation1: \\( x = 15 + 10 \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.767, + 0.383, + 0.862, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation2: \\( x = 40 * 15 \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.767, + 0.392, + 0.862, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation3: \\( x = 40 * 10 \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.885, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Examples of math word problem (MWP) generation by different methods. (a) original MWP, (b) MWP generated by back translation method (Kumar et al., 2022), (c) MWP with diverse questions generated by our method. The questions are highlighted by red color in the texts of (a) and (b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.531, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "task, the machine needs to extract relevant information from natural language texts and perform mathematical reasoning, which is challenging. With the boom of deep neural networks (DNN), the research of solving MWP has recently made great progress. For example, Seq2Seq models (Wang et al., 2017; Xie and Sun, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a) as well as pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Tan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Liang et al., 2022) have been extensively exploited to deal with MWP, and increase the prediction accuracy significantly. However, such models are usually in lack of the ability of learning by analogy due to the limited data size and problem diversity. Therefore, current approaches unfortunately have reached their performance bottleneck (Zhang et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Sundaram et al., 2022), showing that much remains to be done." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To alleviate this limitation, recent focus has been put on how to augment high-quality data for MwPs. Along this line, there have been some proposals (Jen et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2022a; Kumar et al., 2022). Though demonstrating encouraging results," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.894, + 0.278, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Equal contribution" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.906, + 0.298, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Corresponding author" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.894, + 0.298, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11091" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.776, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 11091-11104" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.96, + 0.701, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "these current practices only consider word-level or sentence-level alternative expressions of the original problem, owing to the rigorous requirement in logic and numerical quantity. As illustrated in Table 1(b), the back translation augmentation method (Kumar et al., 2022) generates less diverse data sharing very limited semantic differences from the original counterpart. On the other hand, Yang et al. (2022) publish a diverse MWP dataset (called UnbiasedMWP), which was collected by manual annotation with huge cost but the size is limited." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.27, + 0.492, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by automatically generating multiple diverse yet consistent questions (together with their corresponding equations), as illustrated in Table 1(c). There are two main reasons for this augmentation strategy. (1) Training on less diverse data would lead the solver to learn shallow heuristics only, whilst deep semantics are preferred in order to better understand the problems (Patel et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2022). Consequently, when the question is changed (i.e., Question1,2,3 in Table 1(c)), the learned solver may not be able to solve MWP properly. (2) Our augmentation strategy could generate challenging and diverse MwPs. Training on such data would improve the ability of learning by analogy, which is essential for an MWP solver to deeply understand the problem. It is also beneficial to reduce the unreasonable case (Patel et al., 2021) that some current solvers still can predict the Equation even without any question (e.g., removing the question in the text of Table 1(a))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.492, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Motivated by these findings, we propose a Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF) to generate high-quality and diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. Our DQGF consists of three components as shown in Figure 1. (1) Diverse Equations Generator: It generates diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP based on two generation strategies. Specifically, we propose a sub-equation based strategy that extracts sub-equations from the original equation, and a unit based strategy that generates equations according to the units (e.g., \"dollars\" in Table 1) in the scenario description. (2) Equation-aware Question Generator: Given a scenario description and generated equation, it generates a corresponding question. For example, given the Scenario description and Equation1 in Table 1(c), it can generate Question1. In details, we utilize two encoders to extract the information of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scenario description and equation respectively, and design an interaction mechanism which exploits numbers as a bridge to fuse the information of both encoders. (3) Data Filter: A large-scale MwP pre-trained language model (Liang et al., 2022) is leveraged to filter unreasonable data. As such, we can generate many high-quality and diverse MwP samples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.215, + 0.887, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Extensive experiments on the existing dataset UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022) show that our proposed DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, thus increasing the accuracy of the MWP solver. To further verify the effectiveness of the DQGF, we produce a new dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions from the current benchmark dataset Math23K (Wang et al., 2017). We also propose a new Group-accuracy metric on all questions of a problem. Experimental results show that DQGF can effectively improve the overall performance of the solver on DiverseMath23K, demonstrating its ability of learning by analogy. In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.472, + 0.887, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a novel diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to generate such data in MWP." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.584, + 0.887, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a Diverse Equations Generator, consisting of sub-equations based and unit based strategy to generate diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.664, + 0.887, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose an Equation-aware Question Generator to generate a question from the given scenario and equation. It consists of two encoders to encode scenario and equation respectively where an interaction mechanism is developed to fuse the information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.776, + 0.887, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We produce a new MWP dataset (called DiiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.839, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver on both UnbiasedMWP and DiverseMath23K." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.472, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11092" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.081, + 0.849, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.289, + 0.887, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An overview of DQGF. Each generated equation from the Diverse Equations Generator and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained Equation-aware Question Generator to generate corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations and form a new MWP. Finally, the candidate MwPs are further filtered using the Data Filter." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.371, + 0.271, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.396, + 0.49, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data Augmentation: Data augmentation has been widely used in various NLP tasks (Feng et al., 2021), but there are few works for MWP. Recently, some MWP data augmentation methods have been proposed. For example, Kumar et al. (2021) reorder the problem description like moving the question at the start. Furthermore, they paraphrase sentences by a paraphrasing model and preserve the entities of the original sentence to keep the theme unchanged. Kumar et al. (2022) further propose back translation, synonym replacement, and named-entity replacement to augment data. Li et al. (2022a) and Liu et al. (2021a) transform the declarative sentence into the question sentence and reverse the operation of expression to generate MwPs. These methods effectively improve the performance of MWP solvers. But most of them are rule-based and augment data with limited semantic differences from the original data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MWP Solver: Recent proposals intend to solve the problem by using sequence or tree generation models. Wang et al. (2017) present a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) approach to generate the mathematical equation. Xie and Sun (2019) propose a goal-driven tree-structured (GTS) model to generate the equation tree. This sequence-to-tree approach significantly improves the performance over the traditional seq2seq approaches. Zhang et al. (2020a) adopt a graph-to-tree approach to model the quality relations using graph convolutional networks (GCN). Applying pre-trained language models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) was shown" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.371, + 0.885, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to benefit the tree expression generation substantially. Prior study (Patel et al., 2021) indicates that existing MWP solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations. As such, they could not solve different questions of the same MWP well and even ignore the question. Our DQGF effectively helps the solver overcome these issues." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.501, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MWP Generation: MWP generation approaches can be divided into three categories: template-based approaches, rewriting-based approaches, and neural network-based approaches. Template-based approaches usually follow a similar two-stage process: they first generalize an existing problem into a template or a skeleton and then generate the MWP sentences from the templates (Williams, 2011; Polozov et al., 2015). Rewriting-based approaches target the MWP generation problem by editing existing human-written MWP sentences to change their theme but the underlying story (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Moon-Rembert and Gilbert, 2019). Recent attempts have been focused on exploiting neural network-based approaches that generate MwPs from equations and topics in an end-to-end manner (Liyanage and Ranathunga, 2020; Liu et al., 2021b; Wang et al., 2021). Unlike these generation methods, our equation-aware question generator focuses on generating questions that are in line with the given scenario and match the given equation. Recently, Shridhar et al. (2022) have also proposed a generation model to implement this function, but main differences exist: (1) Their work focuses on generating goal-driven" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11093" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sub-questions without equations, which is used in prompt learning instead of a general data augmentation tool. (2) While their generator directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence to encode and fuse their information, the structure of equation is much different from the scenario texts. We propose two different encoders where an interaction mechanism is designed to leverage numbers as a bridge to fuse the information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.259, + 0.492, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MWP Dataset: Several datasets are proposed to evaluate the model's numerical reasoning ability (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Amini et al., 2019; Miao et al., 2020). They only provide a single question to each scenario. Therefore, training and evaluating on such setting will lead that the solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations (Patel et al., 2021). To mitigate this learning bias, Yang et al. (2022) propose a diverse MwP dataset (called UnbiasedMwP). However, manually collecting high-quality datasets is usually labor-intensive and time-consuming in practice. In contrast, our DQGF could automatically generate such diverse data. In this paper, we will use UnbiasedMwP to train equation-aware question generator and evaluate the whole DQGF. Besides, we also propose a diverse MwP dataset DiverseMath23k to evaluate the MwP solver." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.564, + 0.265, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.593, + 0.49, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1 shows the overview of the proposed Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF). We firstly put the original MWP into the Diverse Equations Generator to generate diverse equations, then the generated equation and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained equation-aware question generator to produce corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations, forming new candidate MwPs. Finally, these candidate MwPs are further filtered by the data filter. In what follows, we will introduce Diverse Equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator, and Data Filter respectively in Section 3.1, Section 3.2, and Section 3.3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.849, + 0.391, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Diverse Equations Generator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diverse equations generator aims to generate diverse equations from the original MWP. Our principle is to generate as many as possible logical" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "equations. Motivated by this, we propose two equation generation strategies: sub-equation based and unit based strategy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.141, + 0.885, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sub-equation Based The equation of the original MWP usually includes some sub-equations, which represent the necessary steps to solve the problem (Cobbe et al., 2021). For instance, in Table 1(c), \"15+10\" is a sub-equation of the original equation, describing a uniform's price. Therefore, we extract these sub-equations from the original equation, which are very high-quality and diverse." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.278, + 0.885, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unit Based There are some physical relations between the numbers in an MWP. We could identify these relations, and then combine numbers with operators to get a new equation. Motivated by this, we propose to search the relations of numbers based on their units. Every number in MWPs has its unit. For example in Table 1, \"40\" has the unit \"students\" and \"15\" has the unit \"dollars\". We combine them in two situations. (1) Same unit: Two numbers with same unit always represent the same object. We combine them with the operator \"+\" to generate equations representing the totality questions like \"what is the total of A and B\". Besides, we combine them with \"-\" and \"/\" which represent the comparison questions like \"how much more A than B\" and \"how many times A than B\", respectively. (2) Different units: Two numbers with different units in a MWP always represent two objects that have subordinate relations. Therefore, we combine them with \"*\". This strategy will generate diverse equations, though it probably brings some unreasonable equations further generating noisy MWPs. Such noisy MWPs will be filtered by the final data filter." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.665, + 0.885, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To be noted, both sub-equation based and unit based strategies rely on heuristic rules. Therefore, we do not need to train our diverse equations generator." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.738, + 0.844, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Equation-aware Question Generator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "General question generation in the Question-Answering area aims to generate a question from a given passage and a specified answer (Sun et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). By regarding the scenario description and equation as passage and answer respectively, we can formulate our task as a general question generation problem. Based on this, we propose an equation-aware question generator under a general encoder-decoder framework as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, we" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11094" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.081, + 0.489, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.288, + 0.458, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Equation-aware Question Generator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.327, + 0.49, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "propose two different encoders to encode the information from scenario and equation respectively, and an interaction mechanism to fuse their information further. For convenience, we form a MWP as \\((S,Q,E)\\), where \\(S\\), \\(Q\\) and \\(E\\) represent the scenario, question and their solution equation respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.448, + 0.49, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scenario Encoder We adopt a pre-trained language model BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as our scenario encoder. The unsupervised pre-training on large corpora makes the model capture linguistic knowledge, which provides rich textual representations. We represent the scenario \\( S \\) as a sequence of \\( T \\) tokens: \\( S = [s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_T] \\), and formulate the encoding process as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.587, + 0.488, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \\dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \\right] = B E R T \\left(\\left[ s _ {1}, s _ {2}, \\dots , s _ {T} \\right]\\right), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( h_i^s \\) represents the embedding of token \\( s_i \\) from the encoder. Finally, the representation of scenario can be written as \\( H^s \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.216, + 0.673, + 0.488, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nH ^ {s} = \\left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \\dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \\right]. \\qquad (2)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.7, + 0.49, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation Encoder The sequence form cannot model the structure of the equation well (Xie and Sun, 2019). Hence we transform it into an equation tree which is then encoded by a TreeLSTM (Tai et al., 2015). The equation is transformed into a binary tree representation as proposed in (Xie and Sun, 2019) and sequentialized as their pre-order traversal. Thus the equation can be represented as \\( E = [e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_n] \\), where \\( n \\) is the length of the pre-order equation and a node \\( e_i \\) represents a number or operator \\( (+,-,*,/ ) \\). In details, we firstly adopt a BERT to encode each node:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nx _ {i} = B E R T \\left(e _ {i}\\right). \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, we encode the equation tree by a TreeLSTM:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.112, + 0.883, + 0.162 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh _ {i} ^ {e} = \\operatorname {T r e e L S T M} \\left(x _ {i}, \\sum_ {k \\in C (i)} h _ {k} ^ {e}\\right), \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.173, + 0.883, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(C(i)\\) represents the index set of child nodes of \\(e_i\\). Finally, the representation of equation can be written as \\(H^{e}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.234, + 0.883, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nH ^ {e} = \\left[ h _ {1} ^ {e}, h _ {2} ^ {e}, \\dots , h _ {n} ^ {e} \\right]. \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.265, + 0.884, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interaction Mechanism In order to generate a question based on both scenario and equation, the interaction between them is crucial. Inspired by iterative deep learning (He and Schomaker, 2019; Schick and Schütze, 2021), we propose an interaction mechanism which uses numbers as bridge to fuse the information of both scenario and equation. It consists of the following two processes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.394, + 0.884, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scenario to Equation: After BERT encodes the whole scenario text, each token's embedding has the scenario's context information. For a number appearing in both scenario and equation, we replace its embedding in Equation (3) with its embedding in Equation (1). In this way, the scenario's context information is brought into the equation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.507, + 0.885, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation to Scenario: After bringing the information of the scenario to the equation and encoding the equation tree, we put the embedding of the number in the equation back into the scenario representation. In detail, we replace its embedding in Equation (1) with its embedding in Equation (4)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.612, + 0.884, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Decoder We adopt the pre-trained language model BertGeneraiton (Rothe et al., 2020) as our decoder. Representing a question \\( Q \\) as a sequence of \\( m \\) tokens: \\( Q = [q_{1}, q_{2}, \\dots, q_{m}] \\), the token \\( q_{i} \\) is generated as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.56, + 0.705, + 0.883, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nq _ {i} = \\text {B e r t G e n e r a t i o n} ([ H, q _ {i - 1} ]), \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.735, + 0.883, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(H\\) is the final representation of the scenario and equation by the concatenating the \\(H_{s}\\) and \\(H_{e}\\) as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.637, + 0.783, + 0.883, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nH = \\left[ H _ {s}, H _ {e} \\right]. \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.808, + 0.883, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To be noted, all of these pre-trained models in both encoders and decoders will be fine-tuned in the MwP dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.644, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Data Filter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Filtering out detrimental augmented data can improve the quality of data as well as the downstream" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11095" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance (Le Bras et al., 2020). However, it will take a great cost to do it by the human filtering due to the large-size of our augmented data. Therefore, we utilize an existing powerful MWP solver as an expert model to judge whether the predicted answer is same as the ground-truth (Axelrod et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2021). Inspired by Ou et al. (2022), we leverage a large-scale MWP pre-trained language model MWP-BERT (Liang et al., 2022) as our expert model, utilizing its powerful generalization ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.264, + 0.49, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Considering our generated MwPs have many new diverse questions, it is difficult for an existing solver to predict the answer accurately, resulting in many false filtering cases. To increase the recall on the generated samples, we apply beam-search strategy on the expert model to select top \\( k \\) predicted equations (We set \\( k = 5 \\) in our experiments). Since the final answer can be from different solutions (Yang et al., 2022), we compare the answer calculated by equations instead of comparing equations directly. The augmented MwPs will pass our final filter if its final answer is equal to one answer from the selected top \\( k \\) equations predicted by the expert model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.503, + 0.262, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.531, + 0.421, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Dataset and experimental setting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.553, + 0.49, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dataset We conduct experiments on an existing diverse questions dataset: UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022), which is split into 2,507, 200, 200 MWP groups for training, validation, and testing, respectively. Each group contains one original MWP and additional 1 to 8 diverse questions and equations with the same scenario. In total, it has 8,895, 684, 685 MwPs for training, validation, and testing, respectively. In this paper, we train our Equation-aware Question Generator and evaluate the whole DQGF on it." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation Metrics For the whole DQGF, we apply the accuracy of a MWP solver to evaluate the quality of generated data. Without loss of generality, we choose GTS (Xie and Sun, 2019) with BERTEncoder (Devlin et al., 2019) as the MWP solver. Furthermore, we also propose a metric of Group-Accuracy to consider the prediction accuracy on all diverse questions in a MWP. For example, in Table 1(c), the normal accuracy simply regards it as three samples by evaluation of each question separately, while our Group-Accuracy consid-" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DataAccuracyGroup-Accuracy
Unbiased-source34.929.5
Unbiased-DQGF62.742.0
Unbiased-GT78.464.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.155, + 0.885, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of the accuracy (\\%) of solver training on different data: Unbiased-source means the original MwPs of each group in UnbiasedMWP, Unbiased-DQGF means generated MwPs with diverse questions by our DQGF, Unbiased-GT means MwPs with the annotated diverse questions and equations, indicating the up-bounded performance of our DQGF." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.283, + 0.887, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ers this as only one sample and if all three equations are predicted correctly then the prediction is correct. Comparing to the common accuracy, the proposed Group-Accuracy can evaluate an solver whether truly understanding an MWP with the ability of learning by analogy. For the equation-aware question generator, we report BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L(Lin, 2004) which are based on exact word overlapping. BERT F1 score (Zhang et al., 2020b) is also used, which is based on DeBERTa (He et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.476, + 0.727, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.5, + 0.885, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the quality of generated data by the results of a common MWP solver on both accuracy and group-accuracy. In details, we train the MWP solver on three different data: the original data of each group in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-source), our generated MwPs data from the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-DQGF), and ground-truth MwPs in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-GT). Notably, the Unbiased-source only has MwPs with single question, while the latter two have MwPs with diverse questions. Since the Unbiased-GT directly uses the annotated diverse questions, its performance can be regarded as the up-bounded of the generation method. The results are shown in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Table 2, we can see that training on the data augmented by DQGF can significantly improve the accuracy of solver from \\(34.9\\%\\) to \\(62.7\\%\\). It indicates that DQGF can generate high quality MWP samples, which are useful for the training of a solver. In addition, the group-accuracy is also increased largely from \\(29.5\\%\\) to \\(42\\%\\), even higher than the common accuracy \\((34.9\\%)\\) of Unbiased-source, showing that our method can generate MWP samples with valid diverse questions to help the solver better understand the problem by capturing" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11096" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.082, + 0.425, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StrategyAccuracy
All62.7
(w/o)Sub-equations58.5
(w/o)Same unit47.3
(w/o)Different units60.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.17, + 0.489, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Comparison of different equations generation strategies." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.212, + 0.49, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsBLEUBERT F1ROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-L
Baseline52.387.477.259.470.6
EQG(w/o)IM54.287.978.461.472.0
EQG60.589.781.466.777.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.267, + 0.489, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Comparison of the different questions generator models. The baseline directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence. EQG means the Equation-aware Question Generator, while EQG(w/o)IM means removing Interaction Mechanism." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.365, + 0.489, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing the ability of learning by analogy. Comparing the Unbiased-DQGF and Unbiased-GT, we can see that there is still a gap between our method and the manual labelling data. Manual annotation method can produce more diverse and completely correct data, which leads to the better performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.474, + 0.334, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Fine-grained Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.496, + 0.489, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we will show the performance of the three components in our DQGF individually." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.539, + 0.49, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diverse Equations Generator Table 3 shows the comparison results among different equations generation strategies. As observed, each strategy can generate high quality and meaningful diverse equations. Concretely, the same unit based generation strategy brings the most benefit to DQGF because such strategy can generate a lot of meaningful but less noisy equations. The sub-equations based strategy and different units based strategy can also effectively generate meaningful equations, but with little improvement to the solver. There are two reasons: 1) The sub-equations based strategy can not generate enough equations since the sub-equations in the original equation are limited; and 2) The different units based strategy generates meaningful equations while bringing many noisy equations, which are thus hard to be filtered completely." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation-aware Question Generator We compare one baseline method that directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence (Shridhar et al., 2022) and utilizes BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as encoder, and BertGeneration (Rothe et al., 2020)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.548, + 0.082, + 0.848, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.221, + 0.882, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Different beamsize \\( k \\) of expert model in Filter." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.261, + 0.885, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "as decoder. Table 4 reports the comparison of the different questions generator models. We can see that EQG(w/o)IM improves the performance of baseline method. It indicates that the scenario encoder and equation encoder can better encode the structure of scenario and equation respectively than directly encoding their concatenated sequence. By integrating the interaction mechanism (IM), we can observe that it leads to a great improvement, achieving the best performance on every metric, which demonstrates that our interaction mechanism can fuse the information of scenario and equation well. Specifically, the BLEU score is \\(60.5\\%\\) which is not high; this is however explainable as it is a metric about text overlap. As observed, though semantically identical, some of our generated data is less overlap with the ground truth. This can also be reflected by its higher BERT F1 score which measures the semantic similarity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.578, + 0.884, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data Filter We examine the effect of beamsize \\( k \\) of the filter in DQGF, which is shown in Figure 3. The experimental results show that DQGF can obtain the best performance when \\( k \\) is 5. DQFG can achieve good performance when \\( k \\) is between 4 and 6, since this appears to be a suitable interval in that a lot of correct candidates can pass the filter. When \\( k \\) is between 1 and 3, filtering is still accurate but some correct data are filtered out. Therefore this interval can achieve competitive but not the best performance. When \\( k \\) is between 7 and 8, the filtering is inaccurate. It causes that some noisy data pass the filter and impacts the final data quality." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.801, + 0.842, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 New MWP dataset DiverseMath23K" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.822, + 0.884, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We apply our trained DQGF model on Math23k to create a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions, which contains 38,320, 1,255, 1,728 MWPs for training, validation, and testing respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To ensure the quality of DiverseMath23k, we" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11097" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.487, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DataAccuracyGroup-AccuracyDeq-Accuracy
Ori63.656.969.4
Diverse68.460.248.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.134, + 0.487, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Performance of solvers training on different data. Ori and DQGF means the original Math23k and DiverseMath23k, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.192, + 0.223, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original MWP:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.204, + 0.488, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The candy in the mall costs 14.60 dollars per box and cookies cost 29.80 dollars per box. Uncle Li wants to buy 4 boxes of candy and 2 boxes of cookies. Please calculate how much money Uncle Li needs to bring?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.252, + 0.305, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation: \\(x = (14.6^{*}4) + (29.8^{*}2)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.265, + 0.228, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generated Data:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.277, + 0.458, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: how many dollars it will cost to buy the cookies?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.289, + 0.242, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation: \\(x = 29.8^{*}2\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.302, + 0.37, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation type: sub-equation, different units" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.315, + 0.449, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: how much more expensive each box of cookies is than each box of candy?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.338, + 0.256, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation: \\(x = 29.8 - 14.6\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.35, + 0.269, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation type: same unit" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.363, + 0.461, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: how many times the price of each box of candy is the price of each box of cookies?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.387, + 0.261, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation: \\( x = 14.6 / 29.8 \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.399, + 0.269, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equation type: same unit" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.422, + 0.487, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Generated diverse questions with equations and their corresponding equation types" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.477, + 0.489, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "manually check generated MwPs, which is much easier and more efficient than complete human annotation. For the validation and test set, to make the evaluation rational, we rigorously check and correct each sample by ourselves. For the training set, we randomly check parts of samples and find that our generated MwPs are also meaningful and credible. The final dataset is available at https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.489, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results We compare the performance of the solver training on original Math23k and DiverseMath23k. In addition to the accuracy and Group-Accuracy, we report the Deq-Accuracy (Patel et al., 2021), which is a metric measuring the question sensitivity. The lower the Deq-Accuracy, the better the question sensitivity. Concretely, it measures the accuracy that the solver predicts the answer of a MWP by deleting questions (i.e., only input scenario). A better solver should have higher question sensitivity, thus a lower Deq-Accuracy is expected." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.808, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results are shown in Table 5. We can see that the accuracy can be improved from \\(63.6\\%\\) to \\(68.4\\%\\), and Group-Accuracy is boosted from \\(56.9\\%\\) to \\(60.2\\%\\). These results indicate that Di-verseMath23k can enable the model to better understand MwPs and improve its ability to solve different questions in the same scenario, even our" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.082, + 0.894, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Scenario: A factory produce 3000 parts, 750 in the first 6 days and the rest in 15 daysOriDiverse
Question1: How many will be produced on average per day in the future? (original question) Equation1: x=(3000-750)/15TrueTrue
Question2: How many more will be produced? Equation2: x=3000-750FalseTrue
Question3: What is the average number of parts produced per day for the first 6 days? Equation3: x=750/6FalseTrue
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.207, + 0.884, + 0.249 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Prediction results of solvers training on different data: Ori means original Math23k, and Diverse means DiverseMath23k." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.277, + 0.884, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "training set possibly contains many noisy samples. Additionally, it is noted that our method can significantly reduce the Deq-accuracy from \\(69.4\\%\\) to \\(48.1\\%\\). It indicates that DiverseMath23k effectively improves the question sensitivity of the solver." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.368, + 0.644, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.389, + 0.884, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generated Data Analysis Table 6 shows some real cases generated by our DQGF. We can see that our Diverse Equation Generator generate multiple meaningful equations. Moreover, the same unit based strategy can generate the most. After getting the diverse equations, our Equation-aware Question Generator successfully generates corresponding questions that match the scenario and equations. In particular, Equation-aware Question Generator works well in relating objects with their corresponding numbers. Therefore the appearance order of objects in questions are not reversed. Finally, these correct MwPs can successfully pass the data filter. More generated samples are shown in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.64, + 0.884, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prediction Results Analysis Table 7 reports the prediction result of solvers trained on different data. The solver trained on the original Math23k can correctly solve Question1, which has a similar MWP in training. However, it cannot solve Question2, which is simpler than Question1. Moreover, it cannot solve other questions like Question3. It indicates that the solver merely learns shallow heuristics but failing to understand the MWP. When trained on DiverseMath23k, the solver would gain the ability of learning by analogy, i.e., the solver could solve different questions even if the question is changed (see Question2, and Question3)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.862, + 0.796, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion and Future Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we explore the ability of learning by analogy for MWP solvers. To do this, we propose a" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11098" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a give MWP, which consists of Diverse equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator and Data Filter. Based on the trained DQGF, we further produce a new MWP dataset (DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions. Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.262, + 0.49, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the future, we will focus on optimizing the model in the solver to improve its ability of learning by analogy and increase the group accuracy on the MwPs with diverse questions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.34, + 0.221, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.365, + 0.49, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our DQGF still exists some limitations. While our generated data improves performance in diverse questions settings, there is still some noise in the generated data that affects the performance of original single question. In the following, we will give the limitations of our DQGF on its three components." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.479, + 0.49, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The diversity of the question depends on the diversity of the equations. Our equation generator is based on heuristic rules, resulting that the generated equations are very simple. In the future, we will try a model based equations generator to generate more diverse equations. In the question generator, it can only recognise equations with the operator \"+\" due to the limited operator set in our training dataset UnbiasedMWP. In the future we will expand the operators so that the generation model can recognise more operators and be more universal. Filtering strategy is also important. Using the answers of expert model as a criterion for evaluation still exists bias and leads to the noisy data. In fact, we have tried to generate more diverse equations but all are filtered by the current data filter. We will look for better filtering strategies in the future." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.781, + 0.287, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) no.62276258, Jiangsu Science and Technology Programme (Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province) no. BE2020006-4, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University's Key Program Special Fund no. KSF-T-06, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "novation programme no. 956123, and UK EPSRC under projects [EP/T026995/1]." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.145, + 0.61, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.168, + 0.886, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. MathQA: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2357-2367, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.311, + 0.887, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amittai Axelrod, Xiaodong He, and Jianfeng Gao. 2011. Domain adaptation via pseudo in-domain data selection. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 355-362." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.388, + 0.887, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.439, + 0.886, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.504, + 0.886, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Steven Y. Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for NLP. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP* 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 968–988. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.621, + 0.886, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.71, + 0.886, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng He and Lambert Schomaker. 2019. Deepotsu: Document enhancement and binarization using iterative deep learning. Pattern recognition, 91:379-390." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.762, + 0.886, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tien-Yi Jen, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2021. Recycling numeracy data augmentation with symbolic verification for math word problem solving. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 653-657." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.852, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanghoon Kim, Hwanhee Lee, Joongbo Shin, and Kyomin Jung. 2019. Improving neural question generation using answer separation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 6602-6609." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.168, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11099" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Ioannis Konstas, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. A theme-rewriting approach for generating algebra word problems. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 1617-1628. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.203, + 0.49, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Subhro Roy, Aida Amini, Nate Kushman, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. Mawps: A math word problem repository. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1152-1157." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.293, + 0.49, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Adversarial examples for evaluating math word problem solvers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November; 2021, pages 2705-2712. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.398, + 0.49, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2022. Practice makes a solver perfect: Data augmentation for math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 4194-4206. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.528, + 0.488, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1078-1088. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.606, + 0.488, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ailisi Li, Yanghua Xiao, Jiaqing Liang, and Yunwen Chen. 2022a. Semantic-based data augmentation for math word problems. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 36-51. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.683, + 0.49, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingjing Li, Yifan Gao, Lidong Bing, Irwin King, and Michael R. Lyu. 2019. Improving question generation with to the point context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3214-3224. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.814, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhongli Li, Wenxuan Zhang, Chao Yan, Qingyu Zhou, Chao Li, Hongzhi Liu, and Yunbo Cao. 2022b. Seeking patterns, not just memorizing procedures: Contrastive learning for solving math word problems. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2486-2496. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenwen Liang, Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Wei Qin, Yunshi Lan, Jie Shao, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2022. Mwp-bert: Numeracy-augmented pre-training for math word problem solving. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 997-1009." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.175, + 0.885, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.226, + 0.885, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qianying Liu, Wenyu Guan, Sujian Li, Fei Cheng, Daisuke Kawahara, and Sadao Kurohashi. 2021a. Roda: Reverse operation based data augmentation for solving math word problems. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1-11." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.315, + 0.885, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianqiao Liu, Qiang Fang, Wenbiao Ding, Hang Li, Zhongqin Wu, and Zitao Liu. 2021b. Mathematical word problem generation from commonsense knowledge graph and equations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4225-4240." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.405, + 0.885, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vijini Liyanage and Surangika Ranathunga. 2020. Multi-lingual mathematical word problem generation using long short term memory networks with enhanced input features. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4709-4716." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.495, + 0.885, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shen-Yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 975-984." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.571, + 0.885, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "DeKita G Moon-Rembert and Juan E Gilbert. 2019. Illmatics: A web-based math word problem generator for students' distal and proximal interests. In *E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education*, pages 842–848. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.673, + 0.885, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiao Ou, Jinchao Zhang, Yang Feng, and Jie Zhou. 2022. Counterfactual data augmentation via perspective transition for open-domain dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 1635-1648. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.789, + 0.885, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11100" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.148, + 0.488, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oleksandr Polozov, Eleanor O'Rourke, Adam M Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, Sumit Gulwani, and Zoran Popovic. 2015. Personalized mathematical word problem generation. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.224, + 0.489, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sascha Rothe, Shashi Narayan, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2020. Leveraging pre-trained checkpoints for sequence generation tasks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:264-280." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.285, + 0.489, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.386, + 0.489, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kumar Shridhar, Jakub Macina, Mennatallah El-Assady, Tanmay Sinha, Manu Kapur, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Automatic generation of socratic subquestions for teaching math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 4136-4149. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.514, + 0.489, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xingwu Sun, Jing Liu, Yajuan Lyu, Wei He, Yanjun Ma, and Shi Wang. 2018. Answer-focused and position-aware neural question generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3930-3939." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.589, + 0.489, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sowmya S Sundaram, Sairam Gurajada, Marco Fisichella, Savitha Sam Abraham, et al. 2022. Why are nlp models fumbling at elementary math? a survey of deep learning based word problem solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.663, + 0.489, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1556-1566. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.804, + 0.489, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minghuan Tan, Lei Wang, Lingxiao Jiang, and Jing Jiang. 2021. Investigating math word problems using pretrained multilingual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08928." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yan Wang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Shuming Shi. 2017. Deep neural solver for math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 845-854." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zichao Wang, Andrew S. Lan, and Richard G. Baraniuk. 2021. Math word problem generation with mathematical consistency and problem context constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5986-5999. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.201, + 0.882, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sandra Williams. 2011. Generating mathematical word problems. In 2011 AAAI Fall symposium series." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.238, + 0.883, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shufang Xie, Ang Lv, Yingce Xia, Lijun Wu, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, and Rui Yan. 2021. Target-side input augmentation for sequence to sequence generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.313, + 0.883, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhipeng Xie and Shichao Sun. 2019. A goal-driven tree-structured neural model for math word problems. In *IJCAI*, pages 5299–5305." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.363, + 0.883, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhicheng Yang, Jinghui Qin, Jiaqi Chen, and Xiaodan Liang. 2022. Unbiased math word problems benchmark for mitigating solving bias. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1401-1408. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.465, + 0.883, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dongxiang Zhang, Lei Wang, Luming Zhang, Bing Tian Dai, and Heng Tao Shen. 2019. The gap of semantic parsing: A survey on automatic math word problem solvers. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(9):2287-2305." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.54, + 0.883, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Yi Bin, Yan Wang, Jie Shao, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2020a. Graph-to-tree learning for solving math word problems. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.603, + 0.883, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.695, + 0.771, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Generated data by DQGF" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.721, + 0.883, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 shows five examples of the generated data by DQGF. Original data is the MWP in dataset which only has single question for each scenario. Generated data is the diverse questions with equations on original data generated by our DQGF." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11101" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.23, + 0.082, + 0.77, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Original Data\nText: A pair of pants costs 58 dollars, and a jacket costs 4 times as much as a pair of pants.\nHow many dollars are spent on 5 sets of these clothes?\nEquation: x=5*(58+(58*4))
Generated Data\nQuestion: How much do a pair of pants and a jacket cost in total?\nEquation: x=58+58*4
Question: How much does a jacket cost?\nEquation: x=58*4
Original Data\nText: Dingding has read 180 pages of a book and has 150 pages left to read.\nHow many pages are there in this book?\nEquation: x=180+150
Generated Data\nQuestion: How many more pages have been read than have not been read?\nEquation: x=180-150
Question: How many times more pages have been read than have not been read?\nEquation: x=180/150
Original Data\nText: Qiangqiang's father and mother work outside. Father sends Qiangqiang 458 dollars a month and mother sends Qiangqiang 447 dollars a month. How much money do Qiangqiang's father and mother send to Qiangqiang each month?\nEquation: x=458+447
Generated Data\nQuestion: How much more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang each month than the father?\nEquation: x=447-458
Question: How many times more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang than the father each month?\nx=447/458
Question: How much more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother?\nEquation: x=458-447
Question: How many times more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother?\nEquation: x=458/447
Original Data\nText: Mom bought a toothbrush for 3.6 dollars and a box of toothpaste for 9.5 dollars. How much is a toothbrush cheaper than a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=9.5-3.6
Generated Data\nQuestion: What is the ratio of the price of a box of toothpaste to a toothbrush?\nEquation: x=9.5/3.6
Question: How much do a toothbrush and a box of toothpaste cost in total?\nEquation: x=3.6+9.5
Question: How much more expensive is a toothbrush than a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=3.6-9.5
What is the ratio of the price of a toothbrush to a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=3.6/9.5
Original Data\nText: A storybook has 438 pages and Xiao Liang has read 202 pages. How many pages does Xiao Liang have left to read?\nEquation: x=438-202
Generated Data\nQuestion: What is the ratio of the number of pages Xiao Liang has read to the total number of pages in the storybook?\nEquation: x=202/438
Question: How many times is the total number of pages in the storybook than the number of pages Xiao Liang has read?\nEquation: x=438/202
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.907, + 0.882, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Five generated MWP samples with Original data and Generated diverse questions with equations by DQGF" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11102" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 6" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.171, + 0.553, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work will not bring risk in life." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.696, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.256, + 0.669, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.127, + 0.696, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.3, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.216, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section3.4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.347, + 0.531, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section3,4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The artifacts we used are publicly and do not have specially items." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.433, + 0.882, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section3,4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Our data is math problem data, does not contain any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.615, + 0.882, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.674, + 0.882, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.347, + 0.882, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.783, + 0.495, + 0.799 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.804, + 0.361, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is not important in our work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.83, + 0.882, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? It is not important in our work because the model is lightweight." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.885, + 0.878, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11103" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.118, + 0.225, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.884, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.193, + 0.219, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.268, + 0.22, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.293, + 0.878, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.315, + 0.202, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.341, + 0.884, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.375, + 0.473, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our paper not involve any issue about that." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.449, + 0.546, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The data does not involve participants' demographic." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.475, + 0.884, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.524, + 0.3, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our data is publicly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.55, + 0.876, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.567, + 0.399, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our data is about math problems" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.593, + 0.884, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.626, + 0.384, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is not important for our data." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11104" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..829c8f4c3c75fdf92bb39ec65b40f308835d8f72 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/447c53b5-536e-40fc-a981-719a2fa2b65c_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3adfde59c9f246283db14bb709224e8aa8b48f01b563289e7593174d31e15fc9 +size 481979 diff --git a/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/full.md b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3bde0881a92c9310638da7ec96c2a453fcce9bd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,457 @@ +# Learning by Analogy: Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem + +Zihao Zhou *♠ + +Maizhen Ning *♠ + +Qiufeng Wang + +Jie Yao + +Wei Wang + +Xiaowei Huang + +Kaizhu Huang + +$\spadesuit$ School of Advanced Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong-liverpool University + +\* University of Liverpool + +$\nabla$ Duke Kunshan University + +{Zihao.Zhou22, Maizhen.Ning16, Jie.Yao22}@student.xjtlu.edu.cn, {Qiufeng.Wang, Wei.Wang03}@xjtlu.edu.cn, + +xiaowei.huang@liverpool.ac.uk, kaizhu.huang@dukekunshan.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Solving math word problem (MWP) with AI techniques has recently made great progress with the success of deep neural networks (DNN), but it is far from being solved. We argue that the ability of learning by analogy is essential for an MWP solver to better understand same problems which may typically be formulated in diverse ways. However most existing works exploit the shortcut learning to train MWP solvers simply based on samples with a single question. In lack of diverse questions, these methods merely learn shallow heuristics. In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by generating diverse yet consistent questions/equations. Given a typical MWP including the scenario description, question, and equation (i.e., answer), we first generate multiple consistent equations via a group of heuristic rules. We then feed them to a question generator together with the scenario to obtain the corresponding diverse questions, forming a new MWP with a variety of questions and equations. Finally we engage a data filter to remove those unreasonable MwPs, keeping the high-quality augmented ones. To evaluate the ability of learning by analogy for an MWP solver, we generate a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method can generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, further leading to performance improvement on DiverseMath23K. The code and dataset is available at: https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP. + +# 1 Introduction + +Solving Math Word Problem (MWP) aims to infer a mathematical equation and final answer from the natural language description of a math problem. Table 1(a) shows one typical MWP example. In this + +# (a) Original Data + +Text: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants. How much did it cost to make these uniforms? + +Equation: $\mathrm{x} = {40} * \left( {{15} + {10}}\right)$ + +# (b) Back Translation Method + +Text: The school produces uniforms for 40 students at $15 per shirt and$ 10 per pants. + +How much does it cost to make these uniforms? + +Equation: $\mathrm{x} = {40} * \left( {{15} + {10}}\right)$ + +# (c) Diverse Questions Generation + +Scenario description: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants. + +Question1: How much did it cost to make a uniform? + +Question2: How much did it cost to make these shirts? Equation2: $x = 40 * 15$ + +Question3: How much did it cost to make these pants? + +Equation1: $x = 15 + 10$ + +Equation2: $x = 40 * 15$ + +Equation3: $x = 40 * 10$ + +Table 1: Examples of math word problem (MWP) generation by different methods. (a) original MWP, (b) MWP generated by back translation method (Kumar et al., 2022), (c) MWP with diverse questions generated by our method. The questions are highlighted by red color in the texts of (a) and (b). + +task, the machine needs to extract relevant information from natural language texts and perform mathematical reasoning, which is challenging. With the boom of deep neural networks (DNN), the research of solving MWP has recently made great progress. For example, Seq2Seq models (Wang et al., 2017; Xie and Sun, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a) as well as pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Tan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Liang et al., 2022) have been extensively exploited to deal with MWP, and increase the prediction accuracy significantly. However, such models are usually in lack of the ability of learning by analogy due to the limited data size and problem diversity. Therefore, current approaches unfortunately have reached their performance bottleneck (Zhang et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Sundaram et al., 2022), showing that much remains to be done. + +To alleviate this limitation, recent focus has been put on how to augment high-quality data for MwPs. Along this line, there have been some proposals (Jen et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2022a; Kumar et al., 2022). Though demonstrating encouraging results, + +these current practices only consider word-level or sentence-level alternative expressions of the original problem, owing to the rigorous requirement in logic and numerical quantity. As illustrated in Table 1(b), the back translation augmentation method (Kumar et al., 2022) generates less diverse data sharing very limited semantic differences from the original counterpart. On the other hand, Yang et al. (2022) publish a diverse MWP dataset (called UnbiasedMWP), which was collected by manual annotation with huge cost but the size is limited. + +In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by automatically generating multiple diverse yet consistent questions (together with their corresponding equations), as illustrated in Table 1(c). There are two main reasons for this augmentation strategy. (1) Training on less diverse data would lead the solver to learn shallow heuristics only, whilst deep semantics are preferred in order to better understand the problems (Patel et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2022). Consequently, when the question is changed (i.e., Question1,2,3 in Table 1(c)), the learned solver may not be able to solve MWP properly. (2) Our augmentation strategy could generate challenging and diverse MwPs. Training on such data would improve the ability of learning by analogy, which is essential for an MWP solver to deeply understand the problem. It is also beneficial to reduce the unreasonable case (Patel et al., 2021) that some current solvers still can predict the Equation even without any question (e.g., removing the question in the text of Table 1(a)). + +Motivated by these findings, we propose a Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF) to generate high-quality and diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. Our DQGF consists of three components as shown in Figure 1. (1) Diverse Equations Generator: It generates diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP based on two generation strategies. Specifically, we propose a sub-equation based strategy that extracts sub-equations from the original equation, and a unit based strategy that generates equations according to the units (e.g., "dollars" in Table 1) in the scenario description. (2) Equation-aware Question Generator: Given a scenario description and generated equation, it generates a corresponding question. For example, given the Scenario description and Equation1 in Table 1(c), it can generate Question1. In details, we utilize two encoders to extract the information of + +scenario description and equation respectively, and design an interaction mechanism which exploits numbers as a bridge to fuse the information of both encoders. (3) Data Filter: A large-scale MwP pre-trained language model (Liang et al., 2022) is leveraged to filter unreasonable data. As such, we can generate many high-quality and diverse MwP samples. + +Extensive experiments on the existing dataset UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022) show that our proposed DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, thus increasing the accuracy of the MWP solver. To further verify the effectiveness of the DQGF, we produce a new dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions from the current benchmark dataset Math23K (Wang et al., 2017). We also propose a new Group-accuracy metric on all questions of a problem. Experimental results show that DQGF can effectively improve the overall performance of the solver on DiverseMath23K, demonstrating its ability of learning by analogy. In summary, our contributions are as follows: + +- We propose a novel diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to generate such data in MWP. +- We propose a Diverse Equations Generator, consisting of sub-equations based and unit based strategy to generate diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP. +- We propose an Equation-aware Question Generator to generate a question from the given scenario and equation. It consists of two encoders to encode scenario and equation respectively where an interaction mechanism is developed to fuse the information. +- We produce a new MWP dataset (called DiiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K. +- Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver on both UnbiasedMWP and DiverseMath23K. + +![](images/fae1780589ee3bc46c493d890f8316d1a2369b6793c41766fa9cec203866eeec.jpg) +Figure 1: An overview of DQGF. Each generated equation from the Diverse Equations Generator and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained Equation-aware Question Generator to generate corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations and form a new MWP. Finally, the candidate MwPs are further filtered using the Data Filter. + +# 2 Related Work + +Data Augmentation: Data augmentation has been widely used in various NLP tasks (Feng et al., 2021), but there are few works for MWP. Recently, some MWP data augmentation methods have been proposed. For example, Kumar et al. (2021) reorder the problem description like moving the question at the start. Furthermore, they paraphrase sentences by a paraphrasing model and preserve the entities of the original sentence to keep the theme unchanged. Kumar et al. (2022) further propose back translation, synonym replacement, and named-entity replacement to augment data. Li et al. (2022a) and Liu et al. (2021a) transform the declarative sentence into the question sentence and reverse the operation of expression to generate MwPs. These methods effectively improve the performance of MWP solvers. But most of them are rule-based and augment data with limited semantic differences from the original data. + +MWP Solver: Recent proposals intend to solve the problem by using sequence or tree generation models. Wang et al. (2017) present a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) approach to generate the mathematical equation. Xie and Sun (2019) propose a goal-driven tree-structured (GTS) model to generate the equation tree. This sequence-to-tree approach significantly improves the performance over the traditional seq2seq approaches. Zhang et al. (2020a) adopt a graph-to-tree approach to model the quality relations using graph convolutional networks (GCN). Applying pre-trained language models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) was shown + +to benefit the tree expression generation substantially. Prior study (Patel et al., 2021) indicates that existing MWP solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations. As such, they could not solve different questions of the same MWP well and even ignore the question. Our DQGF effectively helps the solver overcome these issues. + +MWP Generation: MWP generation approaches can be divided into three categories: template-based approaches, rewriting-based approaches, and neural network-based approaches. Template-based approaches usually follow a similar two-stage process: they first generalize an existing problem into a template or a skeleton and then generate the MWP sentences from the templates (Williams, 2011; Polozov et al., 2015). Rewriting-based approaches target the MWP generation problem by editing existing human-written MWP sentences to change their theme but the underlying story (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Moon-Rembert and Gilbert, 2019). Recent attempts have been focused on exploiting neural network-based approaches that generate MwPs from equations and topics in an end-to-end manner (Liyanage and Ranathunga, 2020; Liu et al., 2021b; Wang et al., 2021). Unlike these generation methods, our equation-aware question generator focuses on generating questions that are in line with the given scenario and match the given equation. Recently, Shridhar et al. (2022) have also proposed a generation model to implement this function, but main differences exist: (1) Their work focuses on generating goal-driven + +sub-questions without equations, which is used in prompt learning instead of a general data augmentation tool. (2) While their generator directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence to encode and fuse their information, the structure of equation is much different from the scenario texts. We propose two different encoders where an interaction mechanism is designed to leverage numbers as a bridge to fuse the information. + +MWP Dataset: Several datasets are proposed to evaluate the model's numerical reasoning ability (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Amini et al., 2019; Miao et al., 2020). They only provide a single question to each scenario. Therefore, training and evaluating on such setting will lead that the solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations (Patel et al., 2021). To mitigate this learning bias, Yang et al. (2022) propose a diverse MwP dataset (called UnbiasedMwP). However, manually collecting high-quality datasets is usually labor-intensive and time-consuming in practice. In contrast, our DQGF could automatically generate such diverse data. In this paper, we will use UnbiasedMwP to train equation-aware question generator and evaluate the whole DQGF. Besides, we also propose a diverse MwP dataset DiverseMath23k to evaluate the MwP solver. + +# 3 Methodology + +Figure 1 shows the overview of the proposed Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF). We firstly put the original MWP into the Diverse Equations Generator to generate diverse equations, then the generated equation and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained equation-aware question generator to produce corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations, forming new candidate MwPs. Finally, these candidate MwPs are further filtered by the data filter. In what follows, we will introduce Diverse Equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator, and Data Filter respectively in Section 3.1, Section 3.2, and Section 3.3. + +# 3.1 Diverse Equations Generator + +Diverse equations generator aims to generate diverse equations from the original MWP. Our principle is to generate as many as possible logical + +equations. Motivated by this, we propose two equation generation strategies: sub-equation based and unit based strategy. + +Sub-equation Based The equation of the original MWP usually includes some sub-equations, which represent the necessary steps to solve the problem (Cobbe et al., 2021). For instance, in Table 1(c), "15+10" is a sub-equation of the original equation, describing a uniform's price. Therefore, we extract these sub-equations from the original equation, which are very high-quality and diverse. + +Unit Based There are some physical relations between the numbers in an MWP. We could identify these relations, and then combine numbers with operators to get a new equation. Motivated by this, we propose to search the relations of numbers based on their units. Every number in MWPs has its unit. For example in Table 1, "40" has the unit "students" and "15" has the unit "dollars". We combine them in two situations. (1) Same unit: Two numbers with same unit always represent the same object. We combine them with the operator "+" to generate equations representing the totality questions like "what is the total of A and B". Besides, we combine them with "-" and "/" which represent the comparison questions like "how much more A than B" and "how many times A than B", respectively. (2) Different units: Two numbers with different units in a MWP always represent two objects that have subordinate relations. Therefore, we combine them with "*". This strategy will generate diverse equations, though it probably brings some unreasonable equations further generating noisy MWPs. Such noisy MWPs will be filtered by the final data filter. + +To be noted, both sub-equation based and unit based strategies rely on heuristic rules. Therefore, we do not need to train our diverse equations generator. + +# 3.2 Equation-aware Question Generator + +General question generation in the Question-Answering area aims to generate a question from a given passage and a specified answer (Sun et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). By regarding the scenario description and equation as passage and answer respectively, we can formulate our task as a general question generation problem. Based on this, we propose an equation-aware question generator under a general encoder-decoder framework as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, we + +![](images/f237cfa8cffbebf80d048e18b0d4e7dc0249ee47d674e9f5d9e89b1c1b976b92.jpg) +Figure 2: Equation-aware Question Generator + +propose two different encoders to encode the information from scenario and equation respectively, and an interaction mechanism to fuse their information further. For convenience, we form a MWP as $(S,Q,E)$ , where $S$ , $Q$ and $E$ represent the scenario, question and their solution equation respectively. + +Scenario Encoder We adopt a pre-trained language model BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as our scenario encoder. The unsupervised pre-training on large corpora makes the model capture linguistic knowledge, which provides rich textual representations. We represent the scenario $S$ as a sequence of $T$ tokens: $S = [s_1, s_2, \dots, s_T]$ , and formulate the encoding process as + +$$ +\left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \right] = B E R T \left(\left[ s _ {1}, s _ {2}, \dots , s _ {T} \right]\right), \tag {1} +$$ + +where $h_i^s$ represents the embedding of token $s_i$ from the encoder. Finally, the representation of scenario can be written as $H^s$ : + +$$ +H ^ {s} = \left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \right]. \qquad (2) +$$ + +Equation Encoder The sequence form cannot model the structure of the equation well (Xie and Sun, 2019). Hence we transform it into an equation tree which is then encoded by a TreeLSTM (Tai et al., 2015). The equation is transformed into a binary tree representation as proposed in (Xie and Sun, 2019) and sequentialized as their pre-order traversal. Thus the equation can be represented as $E = [e_1, e_2, \dots, e_n]$ , where $n$ is the length of the pre-order equation and a node $e_i$ represents a number or operator $(+,-,*,/ )$ . In details, we firstly adopt a BERT to encode each node: + +$$ +x _ {i} = B E R T \left(e _ {i}\right). \tag {3} +$$ + +Then, we encode the equation tree by a TreeLSTM: + +$$ +h _ {i} ^ {e} = \operatorname {T r e e L S T M} \left(x _ {i}, \sum_ {k \in C (i)} h _ {k} ^ {e}\right), \tag {4} +$$ + +where $C(i)$ represents the index set of child nodes of $e_i$ . Finally, the representation of equation can be written as $H^{e}$ : + +$$ +H ^ {e} = \left[ h _ {1} ^ {e}, h _ {2} ^ {e}, \dots , h _ {n} ^ {e} \right]. \tag {5} +$$ + +Interaction Mechanism In order to generate a question based on both scenario and equation, the interaction between them is crucial. Inspired by iterative deep learning (He and Schomaker, 2019; Schick and Schütze, 2021), we propose an interaction mechanism which uses numbers as bridge to fuse the information of both scenario and equation. It consists of the following two processes. + +Scenario to Equation: After BERT encodes the whole scenario text, each token's embedding has the scenario's context information. For a number appearing in both scenario and equation, we replace its embedding in Equation (3) with its embedding in Equation (1). In this way, the scenario's context information is brought into the equation. + +Equation to Scenario: After bringing the information of the scenario to the equation and encoding the equation tree, we put the embedding of the number in the equation back into the scenario representation. In detail, we replace its embedding in Equation (1) with its embedding in Equation (4). + +Decoder We adopt the pre-trained language model BertGeneraiton (Rothe et al., 2020) as our decoder. Representing a question $Q$ as a sequence of $m$ tokens: $Q = [q_{1}, q_{2}, \dots, q_{m}]$ , the token $q_{i}$ is generated as + +$$ +q _ {i} = \text {B e r t G e n e r a t i o n} ([ H, q _ {i - 1} ]), \tag {6} +$$ + +where $H$ is the final representation of the scenario and equation by the concatenating the $H_{s}$ and $H_{e}$ as + +$$ +H = \left[ H _ {s}, H _ {e} \right]. \tag {7} +$$ + +To be noted, all of these pre-trained models in both encoders and decoders will be fine-tuned in the MwP dataset. + +# 3.3 Data Filter + +Filtering out detrimental augmented data can improve the quality of data as well as the downstream + +performance (Le Bras et al., 2020). However, it will take a great cost to do it by the human filtering due to the large-size of our augmented data. Therefore, we utilize an existing powerful MWP solver as an expert model to judge whether the predicted answer is same as the ground-truth (Axelrod et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2021). Inspired by Ou et al. (2022), we leverage a large-scale MWP pre-trained language model MWP-BERT (Liang et al., 2022) as our expert model, utilizing its powerful generalization ability. + +Considering our generated MwPs have many new diverse questions, it is difficult for an existing solver to predict the answer accurately, resulting in many false filtering cases. To increase the recall on the generated samples, we apply beam-search strategy on the expert model to select top $k$ predicted equations (We set $k = 5$ in our experiments). Since the final answer can be from different solutions (Yang et al., 2022), we compare the answer calculated by equations instead of comparing equations directly. The augmented MwPs will pass our final filter if its final answer is equal to one answer from the selected top $k$ equations predicted by the expert model. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Dataset and experimental setting + +Dataset We conduct experiments on an existing diverse questions dataset: UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022), which is split into 2,507, 200, 200 MWP groups for training, validation, and testing, respectively. Each group contains one original MWP and additional 1 to 8 diverse questions and equations with the same scenario. In total, it has 8,895, 684, 685 MwPs for training, validation, and testing, respectively. In this paper, we train our Equation-aware Question Generator and evaluate the whole DQGF on it. + +Evaluation Metrics For the whole DQGF, we apply the accuracy of a MWP solver to evaluate the quality of generated data. Without loss of generality, we choose GTS (Xie and Sun, 2019) with BERTEncoder (Devlin et al., 2019) as the MWP solver. Furthermore, we also propose a metric of Group-Accuracy to consider the prediction accuracy on all diverse questions in a MWP. For example, in Table 1(c), the normal accuracy simply regards it as three samples by evaluation of each question separately, while our Group-Accuracy consid- + +
DataAccuracyGroup-Accuracy
Unbiased-source34.929.5
Unbiased-DQGF62.742.0
Unbiased-GT78.464.0
+ +Table 2: Comparison of the accuracy (\%) of solver training on different data: Unbiased-source means the original MwPs of each group in UnbiasedMWP, Unbiased-DQGF means generated MwPs with diverse questions by our DQGF, Unbiased-GT means MwPs with the annotated diverse questions and equations, indicating the up-bounded performance of our DQGF. + +ers this as only one sample and if all three equations are predicted correctly then the prediction is correct. Comparing to the common accuracy, the proposed Group-Accuracy can evaluate an solver whether truly understanding an MWP with the ability of learning by analogy. For the equation-aware question generator, we report BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L(Lin, 2004) which are based on exact word overlapping. BERT F1 score (Zhang et al., 2020b) is also used, which is based on DeBERTa (He et al., 2021). + +# 4.2 Experimental Results + +We evaluate the quality of generated data by the results of a common MWP solver on both accuracy and group-accuracy. In details, we train the MWP solver on three different data: the original data of each group in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-source), our generated MwPs data from the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-DQGF), and ground-truth MwPs in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-GT). Notably, the Unbiased-source only has MwPs with single question, while the latter two have MwPs with diverse questions. Since the Unbiased-GT directly uses the annotated diverse questions, its performance can be regarded as the up-bounded of the generation method. The results are shown in Table 2. + +As shown in Table 2, we can see that training on the data augmented by DQGF can significantly improve the accuracy of solver from $34.9\%$ to $62.7\%$ . It indicates that DQGF can generate high quality MWP samples, which are useful for the training of a solver. In addition, the group-accuracy is also increased largely from $29.5\%$ to $42\%$ , even higher than the common accuracy $(34.9\%)$ of Unbiased-source, showing that our method can generate MWP samples with valid diverse questions to help the solver better understand the problem by capturing + +
StrategyAccuracy
All62.7
(w/o)Sub-equations58.5
(w/o)Same unit47.3
(w/o)Different units60.4
+ +Table 3: Comparison of different equations generation strategies. + +
MethodsBLEUBERT F1ROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-L
Baseline52.387.477.259.470.6
EQG(w/o)IM54.287.978.461.472.0
EQG60.589.781.466.777.4
+ +Table 4: Comparison of the different questions generator models. The baseline directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence. EQG means the Equation-aware Question Generator, while EQG(w/o)IM means removing Interaction Mechanism. + +ing the ability of learning by analogy. Comparing the Unbiased-DQGF and Unbiased-GT, we can see that there is still a gap between our method and the manual labelling data. Manual annotation method can produce more diverse and completely correct data, which leads to the better performance. + +# 4.3 Fine-grained Analysis + +In this section, we will show the performance of the three components in our DQGF individually. + +Diverse Equations Generator Table 3 shows the comparison results among different equations generation strategies. As observed, each strategy can generate high quality and meaningful diverse equations. Concretely, the same unit based generation strategy brings the most benefit to DQGF because such strategy can generate a lot of meaningful but less noisy equations. The sub-equations based strategy and different units based strategy can also effectively generate meaningful equations, but with little improvement to the solver. There are two reasons: 1) The sub-equations based strategy can not generate enough equations since the sub-equations in the original equation are limited; and 2) The different units based strategy generates meaningful equations while bringing many noisy equations, which are thus hard to be filtered completely. + +Equation-aware Question Generator We compare one baseline method that directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence (Shridhar et al., 2022) and utilizes BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as encoder, and BertGeneration (Rothe et al., 2020) + +![](images/c334a70ec9c41cf26e9fb29cc8725264023bc65671fb9f80ce8b31575263e02e.jpg) +Figure 3: Different beamsize $k$ of expert model in Filter. + +as decoder. Table 4 reports the comparison of the different questions generator models. We can see that EQG(w/o)IM improves the performance of baseline method. It indicates that the scenario encoder and equation encoder can better encode the structure of scenario and equation respectively than directly encoding their concatenated sequence. By integrating the interaction mechanism (IM), we can observe that it leads to a great improvement, achieving the best performance on every metric, which demonstrates that our interaction mechanism can fuse the information of scenario and equation well. Specifically, the BLEU score is $60.5\%$ which is not high; this is however explainable as it is a metric about text overlap. As observed, though semantically identical, some of our generated data is less overlap with the ground truth. This can also be reflected by its higher BERT F1 score which measures the semantic similarity. + +Data Filter We examine the effect of beamsize $k$ of the filter in DQGF, which is shown in Figure 3. The experimental results show that DQGF can obtain the best performance when $k$ is 5. DQFG can achieve good performance when $k$ is between 4 and 6, since this appears to be a suitable interval in that a lot of correct candidates can pass the filter. When $k$ is between 1 and 3, filtering is still accurate but some correct data are filtered out. Therefore this interval can achieve competitive but not the best performance. When $k$ is between 7 and 8, the filtering is inaccurate. It causes that some noisy data pass the filter and impacts the final data quality. + +# 4.4 New MWP dataset DiverseMath23K + +We apply our trained DQGF model on Math23k to create a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions, which contains 38,320, 1,255, 1,728 MWPs for training, validation, and testing respectively. + +To ensure the quality of DiverseMath23k, we + +
DataAccuracyGroup-AccuracyDeq-Accuracy
Ori63.656.969.4
Diverse68.460.248.1
+ +# Original MWP: + +The candy in the mall costs 14.60 dollars per box and cookies cost 29.80 dollars per box. Uncle Li wants to buy 4 boxes of candy and 2 boxes of cookies. Please calculate how much money Uncle Li needs to bring? + +Equation: $x = (14.6^{*}4) + (29.8^{*}2)$ + +# Generated Data: + +Question: how many dollars it will cost to buy the cookies? + +Equation: $x = 29.8^{*}2$ + +Equation type: sub-equation, different units + +Question: how much more expensive each box of cookies is than each box of candy? + +Equation: $x = 29.8 - 14.6$ + +Equation type: same unit + +Question: how many times the price of each box of candy is the price of each box of cookies? + +Equation: $x = 14.6 / 29.8$ + +Equation type: same unit + +Table 6: Generated diverse questions with equations and their corresponding equation types + +manually check generated MwPs, which is much easier and more efficient than complete human annotation. For the validation and test set, to make the evaluation rational, we rigorously check and correct each sample by ourselves. For the training set, we randomly check parts of samples and find that our generated MwPs are also meaningful and credible. The final dataset is available at https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP. + +Results We compare the performance of the solver training on original Math23k and DiverseMath23k. In addition to the accuracy and Group-Accuracy, we report the Deq-Accuracy (Patel et al., 2021), which is a metric measuring the question sensitivity. The lower the Deq-Accuracy, the better the question sensitivity. Concretely, it measures the accuracy that the solver predicts the answer of a MWP by deleting questions (i.e., only input scenario). A better solver should have higher question sensitivity, thus a lower Deq-Accuracy is expected. + +The results are shown in Table 5. We can see that the accuracy can be improved from $63.6\%$ to $68.4\%$ , and Group-Accuracy is boosted from $56.9\%$ to $60.2\%$ . These results indicate that Di-verseMath23k can enable the model to better understand MwPs and improve its ability to solve different questions in the same scenario, even our + +Table 5: Performance of solvers training on different data. Ori and DQGF means the original Math23k and DiverseMath23k, respectively. + +
Scenario: A factory produce 3000 parts, 750 in the first 6 days and the rest in 15 daysOriDiverse
Question1: How many will be produced on average per day in the future? (original question) Equation1: x=(3000-750)/15TrueTrue
Question2: How many more will be produced? Equation2: x=3000-750FalseTrue
Question3: What is the average number of parts produced per day for the first 6 days? Equation3: x=750/6FalseTrue
+ +Table 7: Prediction results of solvers training on different data: Ori means original Math23k, and Diverse means DiverseMath23k. + +training set possibly contains many noisy samples. Additionally, it is noted that our method can significantly reduce the Deq-accuracy from $69.4\%$ to $48.1\%$ . It indicates that DiverseMath23k effectively improves the question sensitivity of the solver. + +# 4.5 Case Study + +Generated Data Analysis Table 6 shows some real cases generated by our DQGF. We can see that our Diverse Equation Generator generate multiple meaningful equations. Moreover, the same unit based strategy can generate the most. After getting the diverse equations, our Equation-aware Question Generator successfully generates corresponding questions that match the scenario and equations. In particular, Equation-aware Question Generator works well in relating objects with their corresponding numbers. Therefore the appearance order of objects in questions are not reversed. Finally, these correct MwPs can successfully pass the data filter. More generated samples are shown in Appendix A. + +Prediction Results Analysis Table 7 reports the prediction result of solvers trained on different data. The solver trained on the original Math23k can correctly solve Question1, which has a similar MWP in training. However, it cannot solve Question2, which is simpler than Question1. Moreover, it cannot solve other questions like Question3. It indicates that the solver merely learns shallow heuristics but failing to understand the MWP. When trained on DiverseMath23k, the solver would gain the ability of learning by analogy, i.e., the solver could solve different questions even if the question is changed (see Question2, and Question3). + +# 5 Conclusion and Future Work + +In this paper, we explore the ability of learning by analogy for MWP solvers. To do this, we propose a + +diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a give MWP, which consists of Diverse equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator and Data Filter. Based on the trained DQGF, we further produce a new MWP dataset (DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions. Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver. + +In the future, we will focus on optimizing the model in the solver to improve its ability of learning by analogy and increase the group accuracy on the MwPs with diverse questions. + +# Limitations + +Our DQGF still exists some limitations. While our generated data improves performance in diverse questions settings, there is still some noise in the generated data that affects the performance of original single question. In the following, we will give the limitations of our DQGF on its three components. + +The diversity of the question depends on the diversity of the equations. Our equation generator is based on heuristic rules, resulting that the generated equations are very simple. In the future, we will try a model based equations generator to generate more diverse equations. In the question generator, it can only recognise equations with the operator "+" due to the limited operator set in our training dataset UnbiasedMWP. In the future we will expand the operators so that the generation model can recognise more operators and be more universal. Filtering strategy is also important. Using the answers of expert model as a criterion for evaluation still exists bias and leads to the noisy data. In fact, we have tried to generate more diverse equations but all are filtered by the current data filter. We will look for better filtering strategies in the future. + +# Acknowledgements + +This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) no.62276258, Jiangsu Science and Technology Programme (Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province) no. BE2020006-4, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University's Key Program Special Fund no. KSF-T-06, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and in + +novation programme no. 956123, and UK EPSRC under projects [EP/T026995/1]. + +# References + +Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. MathQA: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2357-2367, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Amittai Axelrod, Xiaodong He, and Jianfeng Gao. 2011. Domain adaptation via pseudo in-domain data selection. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 355-362. +K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*. +Steven Y. Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for NLP. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP* 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 968–988. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. +Sheng He and Lambert Schomaker. 2019. Deepotsu: Document enhancement and binarization using iterative deep learning. Pattern recognition, 91:379-390. +Tien-Yi Jen, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2021. Recycling numeracy data augmentation with symbolic verification for math word problem solving. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 653-657. +Yanghoon Kim, Hwanhee Lee, Joongbo Shin, and Kyomin Jung. 2019. Improving neural question generation using answer separation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 6602-6609. + +Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Ioannis Konstas, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. A theme-rewriting approach for generating algebra word problems. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 1617-1628. The Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Subhro Roy, Aida Amini, Nate Kushman, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. Mawps: A math word problem repository. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1152-1157. +Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Adversarial examples for evaluating math word problem solvers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November; 2021, pages 2705-2712. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2022. Practice makes a solver perfect: Data augmentation for math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 4194-4206. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1078-1088. PMLR. +Ailisi Li, Yanghua Xiao, Jiaqing Liang, and Yunwen Chen. 2022a. Semantic-based data augmentation for math word problems. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 36-51. Springer. +Jingjing Li, Yifan Gao, Lidong Bing, Irwin King, and Michael R. Lyu. 2019. Improving question generation with to the point context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3214-3224. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhongli Li, Wenxuan Zhang, Chao Yan, Qingyu Zhou, Chao Li, Hongzhi Liu, and Yunbo Cao. 2022b. Seeking patterns, not just memorizing procedures: Contrastive learning for solving math word problems. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2486-2496. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Zhenwen Liang, Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Wei Qin, Yunshi Lan, Jie Shao, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2022. Mwp-bert: Numeracy-augmented pre-training for math word problem solving. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 997-1009. +Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81. +Qianying Liu, Wenyu Guan, Sujian Li, Fei Cheng, Daisuke Kawahara, and Sadao Kurohashi. 2021a. Roda: Reverse operation based data augmentation for solving math word problems. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1-11. +Tianqiao Liu, Qiang Fang, Wenbiao Ding, Hang Li, Zhongqin Wu, and Zitao Liu. 2021b. Mathematical word problem generation from commonsense knowledge graph and equations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4225-4240. +Vijini Liyanage and Surangika Ranathunga. 2020. Multi-lingual mathematical word problem generation using long short term memory networks with enhanced input features. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4709-4716. +Shen-Yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 975-984. +DeKita G Moon-Rembert and Juan E Gilbert. 2019. Illmatics: A web-based math word problem generator for students' distal and proximal interests. In *E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education*, pages 842–848. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). +Jiao Ou, Jinchao Zhang, Yang Feng, and Jie Zhou. 2022. Counterfactual data augmentation via perspective transition for open-domain dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 1635-1648. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318. +Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the + +Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Oleksandr Polozov, Eleanor O'Rourke, Adam M Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, Sumit Gulwani, and Zoran Popovic. 2015. Personalized mathematical word problem generation. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Sascha Rothe, Shashi Narayan, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2020. Leveraging pre-trained checkpoints for sequence generation tasks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:264-280. +Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kumar Shridhar, Jakub Macina, Mennatallah El-Assady, Tanmay Sinha, Manu Kapur, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Automatic generation of socratic subquestions for teaching math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 4136-4149. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xingwu Sun, Jing Liu, Yajuan Lyu, Wei He, Yanjun Ma, and Shi Wang. 2018. Answer-focused and position-aware neural question generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3930-3939. +Sowmya S Sundaram, Sairam Gurajada, Marco Fisichella, Savitha Sam Abraham, et al. 2022. Why are nlp models fumbling at elementary math? a survey of deep learning based word problem solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15683. +Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1556-1566. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +Minghuan Tan, Lei Wang, Lingxiao Jiang, and Jing Jiang. 2021. Investigating math word problems using pretrained multilingual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08928. +Yan Wang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Shuming Shi. 2017. Deep neural solver for math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 845-854. + +Zichao Wang, Andrew S. Lan, and Richard G. Baraniuk. 2021. Math word problem generation with mathematical consistency and problem context constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5986-5999. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sandra Williams. 2011. Generating mathematical word problems. In 2011 AAAI Fall symposium series. +Shufang Xie, Ang Lv, Yingce Xia, Lijun Wu, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, and Rui Yan. 2021. Target-side input augmentation for sequence to sequence generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Zhipeng Xie and Shichao Sun. 2019. A goal-driven tree-structured neural model for math word problems. In *IJCAI*, pages 5299–5305. +Zhicheng Yang, Jinghui Qin, Jiaqi Chen, and Xiaodan Liang. 2022. Unbiased math word problems benchmark for mitigating solving bias. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1401-1408. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dongxiang Zhang, Lei Wang, Luming Zhang, Bing Tian Dai, and Heng Tao Shen. 2019. The gap of semantic parsing: A survey on automatic math word problem solvers. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(9):2287-2305. +Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Yi Bin, Yan Wang, Jie Shao, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2020a. Graph-to-tree learning for solving math word problems. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. + +# A Generated data by DQGF + +Table 8 shows five examples of the generated data by DQGF. Original data is the MWP in dataset which only has single question for each scenario. Generated data is the diverse questions with equations on original data generated by our DQGF. + +
Original Data +Text: A pair of pants costs 58 dollars, and a jacket costs 4 times as much as a pair of pants. +How many dollars are spent on 5 sets of these clothes? +Equation: x=5*(58+(58*4))
Generated Data +Question: How much do a pair of pants and a jacket cost in total? +Equation: x=58+58*4
Question: How much does a jacket cost? +Equation: x=58*4
Original Data +Text: Dingding has read 180 pages of a book and has 150 pages left to read. +How many pages are there in this book? +Equation: x=180+150
Generated Data +Question: How many more pages have been read than have not been read? +Equation: x=180-150
Question: How many times more pages have been read than have not been read? +Equation: x=180/150
Original Data +Text: Qiangqiang's father and mother work outside. Father sends Qiangqiang 458 dollars a month and mother sends Qiangqiang 447 dollars a month. How much money do Qiangqiang's father and mother send to Qiangqiang each month? +Equation: x=458+447
Generated Data +Question: How much more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang each month than the father? +Equation: x=447-458
Question: How many times more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang than the father each month? +x=447/458
Question: How much more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother? +Equation: x=458-447
Question: How many times more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother? +Equation: x=458/447
Original Data +Text: Mom bought a toothbrush for 3.6 dollars and a box of toothpaste for 9.5 dollars. How much is a toothbrush cheaper than a box of toothpaste? +Equation: x=9.5-3.6
Generated Data +Question: What is the ratio of the price of a box of toothpaste to a toothbrush? +Equation: x=9.5/3.6
Question: How much do a toothbrush and a box of toothpaste cost in total? +Equation: x=3.6+9.5
Question: How much more expensive is a toothbrush than a box of toothpaste? +Equation: x=3.6-9.5
What is the ratio of the price of a toothbrush to a box of toothpaste? +Equation: x=3.6/9.5
Original Data +Text: A storybook has 438 pages and Xiao Liang has read 202 pages. How many pages does Xiao Liang have left to read? +Equation: x=438-202
Generated Data +Question: What is the ratio of the number of pages Xiao Liang has read to the total number of pages in the storybook? +Equation: x=202/438
Question: How many times is the total number of pages in the storybook than the number of pages Xiao Liang has read? +Equation: x=438/202
+ +Table 8: Five generated MWP samples with Original data and Generated diverse questions with equations by DQGF + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 6 +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work will not bring risk in life. +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1 +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Section3.4 + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section3,4 +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The artifacts we used are publicly and do not have specially items. +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section3,4 +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Our data is math problem data, does not contain any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content. +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section4 +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4 + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +It is not important in our work + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? It is not important in our work because the model is lightweight. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +Section 4 + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +Section4 + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +Section4 + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Section4 + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +Our paper not involve any issue about that. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +The data does not involve participants' demographic. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +Our data is publicly. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +Our data is about math problems + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +It is not important for our data. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/images.zip b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57c5986091e3a3a7e269ba58de2036671d23b772 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ade29efd25e585e5896588a8535e5ed2643628ced8c235de89e153d4a91f0292 +size 404067 diff --git a/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/layout.json b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a5f627b39e67d71855b973cbabeaddc0140cad9 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning by Analogy_ Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9815 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 504, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 504, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 504, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning by Analogy: Diverse Questions Generation in Math Word Problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 109, + 218, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 109, + 218, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 109, + 218, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zihao Zhou *♠" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 110, + 336, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 110, + 336, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 110, + 336, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maizhen Ning *♠" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 110, + 441, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 110, + 441, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 110, + 441, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qiufeng Wang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 125, + 169, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 125, + 169, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 125, + 169, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jie Yao" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 125, + 255, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 125, + 255, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 125, + 255, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Wang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 278, + 125, + 359, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 278, + 125, + 359, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 278, + 125, + 359, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaowei Huang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 125, + 476, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 125, + 476, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 125, + 476, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaizhu Huang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 138, + 470, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 138, + 470, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 138, + 470, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\spadesuit" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 138, + 470, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " School of Advanced Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong-liverpool University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 153, + 282, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 153, + 282, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 153, + 282, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\\* University of Liverpool" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 153, + 439, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 153, + 439, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 153, + 439, + 167 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 153, + 439, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Duke Kunshan University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 169, + 524, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 169, + 524, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 169, + 524, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{Zihao.Zhou22, Maizhen.Ning16, Jie.Yao22}@student.xjtlu.edu.cn, {Qiufeng.Wang, Wei.Wang03}@xjtlu.edu.cn," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 183, + 436, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 183, + 436, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 183, + 436, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "xiaowei.huang@liverpool.ac.uk, kaizhu.huang@dukekunshan.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Solving math word problem (MWP) with AI techniques has recently made great progress with the success of deep neural networks (DNN), but it is far from being solved. We argue that the ability of learning by analogy is essential for an MWP solver to better understand same problems which may typically be formulated in diverse ways. However most existing works exploit the shortcut learning to train MWP solvers simply based on samples with a single question. In lack of diverse questions, these methods merely learn shallow heuristics. In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by generating diverse yet consistent questions/equations. Given a typical MWP including the scenario description, question, and equation (i.e., answer), we first generate multiple consistent equations via a group of heuristic rules. We then feed them to a question generator together with the scenario to obtain the corresponding diverse questions, forming a new MWP with a variety of questions and equations. Finally we engage a data filter to remove those unreasonable MwPs, keeping the high-quality augmented ones. To evaluate the ability of learning by analogy for an MWP solver, we generate a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method can generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, further leading to performance improvement on DiverseMath23K. The code and dataset is available at: https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 154, + 684 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 154, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 154, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 746 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Solving Math Word Problem (MWP) aims to infer a mathematical equation and final answer from the natural language description of a math problem. Table 1(a) shows one typical MWP example. In this" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 213, + 353, + 222 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 213, + 353, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 213, + 353, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Original Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 224, + 530, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 224, + 530, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 224, + 530, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants. How much did it cost to make these uniforms?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 239, + 373, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 239, + 373, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 239, + 373, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 239, + 373, + 247 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{x} = {40} * \\left( {{15} + {10}}\\right)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 250, + 384, + 258 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 250, + 384, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 250, + 384, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Back Translation Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 260, + 522, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 260, + 522, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 260, + 522, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text: The school produces uniforms for 40 students at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 260, + 522, + 269 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15 per shirt and" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 260, + 522, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10 per pants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 269, + 427, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 269, + 427, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 269, + 427, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How much does it cost to make these uniforms?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 277, + 373, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 277, + 373, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 277, + 373, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 277, + 373, + 285 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{x} = {40} * \\left( {{15} + {10}}\\right)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 287, + 396, + 296 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 287, + 396, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 287, + 396, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Diverse Questions Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 298, + 529, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 298, + 529, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 298, + 529, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scenario description: The school makes uniforms for 40 students, known to be 15 dollars per shirt and 10 dollars per pants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 314, + 440, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 314, + 440, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 314, + 440, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question1: How much did it cost to make a uniform?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question2: How much did it cost to make these shirts? Equation2: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = 40 * 15" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 329, + 443, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 329, + 443, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 329, + 443, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question3: How much did it cost to make these pants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 314, + 513, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 314, + 513, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 314, + 513, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 314, + 513, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = 15 + 10" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation2: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 322, + 512, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = 40 * 15" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 329, + 512, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 329, + 512, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 329, + 512, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation3: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 456, + 329, + 512, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = 40 * 10" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Examples of math word problem (MWP) generation by different methods. (a) original MWP, (b) MWP generated by back translation method (Kumar et al., 2022), (c) MWP with diverse questions generated by our method. The questions are highlighted by red color in the texts of (a) and (b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 446, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 446, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 446, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "task, the machine needs to extract relevant information from natural language texts and perform mathematical reasoning, which is challenging. With the boom of deep neural networks (DNN), the research of solving MWP has recently made great progress. For example, Seq2Seq models (Wang et al., 2017; Xie and Sun, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a) as well as pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Tan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Liang et al., 2022) have been extensively exploited to deal with MWP, and increase the prediction accuracy significantly. However, such models are usually in lack of the ability of learning by analogy due to the limited data size and problem diversity. Therefore, current approaches unfortunately have reached their performance bottleneck (Zhang et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Sundaram et al., 2022), showing that much remains to be done." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To alleviate this limitation, recent focus has been put on how to augment high-quality data for MwPs. Along this line, there have been some proposals (Jen et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2022a; Kumar et al., 2022). Though demonstrating encouraging results," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 751, + 165, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 751, + 165, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 751, + 165, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Equal contribution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 177, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 177, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 177, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Corresponding author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11091" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 11091-11104" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "these current practices only consider word-level or sentence-level alternative expressions of the original problem, owing to the rigorous requirement in logic and numerical quantity. As illustrated in Table 1(b), the back translation augmentation method (Kumar et al., 2022) generates less diverse data sharing very limited semantic differences from the original counterpart. On the other hand, Yang et al. (2022) publish a diverse MWP dataset (called UnbiasedMWP), which was collected by manual annotation with huge cost but the size is limited." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 292, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 292, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 292, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we make a first attempt to solve MwPs by automatically generating multiple diverse yet consistent questions (together with their corresponding equations), as illustrated in Table 1(c). There are two main reasons for this augmentation strategy. (1) Training on less diverse data would lead the solver to learn shallow heuristics only, whilst deep semantics are preferred in order to better understand the problems (Patel et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2022). Consequently, when the question is changed (i.e., Question1,2,3 in Table 1(c)), the learned solver may not be able to solve MWP properly. (2) Our augmentation strategy could generate challenging and diverse MwPs. Training on such data would improve the ability of learning by analogy, which is essential for an MWP solver to deeply understand the problem. It is also beneficial to reduce the unreasonable case (Patel et al., 2021) that some current solvers still can predict the Equation even without any question (e.g., removing the question in the text of Table 1(a))." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Motivated by these findings, we propose a Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF) to generate high-quality and diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. Our DQGF consists of three components as shown in Figure 1. (1) Diverse Equations Generator: It generates diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP based on two generation strategies. Specifically, we propose a sub-equation based strategy that extracts sub-equations from the original equation, and a unit based strategy that generates equations according to the units (e.g., \"dollars\" in Table 1) in the scenario description. (2) Equation-aware Question Generator: Given a scenario description and generated equation, it generates a corresponding question. For example, given the Scenario description and Equation1 in Table 1(c), it can generate Question1. In details, we utilize two encoders to extract the information of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scenario description and equation respectively, and design an interaction mechanism which exploits numbers as a bridge to fuse the information of both encoders. (3) Data Filter: A large-scale MwP pre-trained language model (Liang et al., 2022) is leveraged to filter unreasonable data. As such, we can generate many high-quality and diverse MwP samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 527, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Extensive experiments on the existing dataset UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022) show that our proposed DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions with corresponding equations, thus increasing the accuracy of the MWP solver. To further verify the effectiveness of the DQGF, we produce a new dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions from the current benchmark dataset Math23K (Wang et al., 2017). We also propose a new Group-accuracy metric on all questions of a problem. Experimental results show that DQGF can effectively improve the overall performance of the solver on DiverseMath23K, demonstrating its ability of learning by analogy. In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 396, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 396, + 527, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 396, + 527, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 396, + 527, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a novel diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a given MWP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to generate such data in MWP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 491, + 527, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 491, + 527, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 491, + 527, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a Diverse Equations Generator, consisting of sub-equations based and unit based strategy to generate diverse and meaningful equations from the original MWP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 558, + 527, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 558, + 527, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 558, + 527, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose an Equation-aware Question Generator to generate a question from the given scenario and equation. It consists of two encoders to encode scenario and equation respectively where an interaction mechanism is developed to fuse the information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 652, + 527, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 652, + 527, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 652, + 527, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We produce a new MWP dataset (called DiiverseMath23K) with diverse questions by extending the current benchmark Math23K." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver on both UnbiasedMWP and DiverseMath23K." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11092" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 505, + 236 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 505, + 236 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 505, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 505, + 236 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fae1780589ee3bc46c493d890f8316d1a2369b6793c41766fa9cec203866eeec.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 243, + 527, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 243, + 527, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 243, + 527, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An overview of DQGF. Each generated equation from the Diverse Equations Generator and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained Equation-aware Question Generator to generate corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations and form a new MWP. Finally, the candidate MwPs are further filtered using the Data Filter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 161, + 325 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 161, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 161, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data Augmentation: Data augmentation has been widely used in various NLP tasks (Feng et al., 2021), but there are few works for MWP. Recently, some MWP data augmentation methods have been proposed. For example, Kumar et al. (2021) reorder the problem description like moving the question at the start. Furthermore, they paraphrase sentences by a paraphrasing model and preserve the entities of the original sentence to keep the theme unchanged. Kumar et al. (2022) further propose back translation, synonym replacement, and named-entity replacement to augment data. Li et al. (2022a) and Liu et al. (2021a) transform the declarative sentence into the question sentence and reverse the operation of expression to generate MwPs. These methods effectively improve the performance of MWP solvers. But most of them are rule-based and augment data with limited semantic differences from the original data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MWP Solver: Recent proposals intend to solve the problem by using sequence or tree generation models. Wang et al. (2017) present a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) approach to generate the mathematical equation. Xie and Sun (2019) propose a goal-driven tree-structured (GTS) model to generate the equation tree. This sequence-to-tree approach significantly improves the performance over the traditional seq2seq approaches. Zhang et al. (2020a) adopt a graph-to-tree approach to model the quality relations using graph convolutional networks (GCN). Applying pre-trained language models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) was shown" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to benefit the tree expression generation substantially. Prior study (Patel et al., 2021) indicates that existing MWP solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations. As such, they could not solve different questions of the same MWP well and even ignore the question. Our DQGF effectively helps the solver overcome these issues." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MWP Generation: MWP generation approaches can be divided into three categories: template-based approaches, rewriting-based approaches, and neural network-based approaches. Template-based approaches usually follow a similar two-stage process: they first generalize an existing problem into a template or a skeleton and then generate the MWP sentences from the templates (Williams, 2011; Polozov et al., 2015). Rewriting-based approaches target the MWP generation problem by editing existing human-written MWP sentences to change their theme but the underlying story (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Moon-Rembert and Gilbert, 2019). Recent attempts have been focused on exploiting neural network-based approaches that generate MwPs from equations and topics in an end-to-end manner (Liyanage and Ranathunga, 2020; Liu et al., 2021b; Wang et al., 2021). Unlike these generation methods, our equation-aware question generator focuses on generating questions that are in line with the given scenario and match the given equation. Recently, Shridhar et al. (2022) have also proposed a generation model to implement this function, but main differences exist: (1) Their work focuses on generating goal-driven" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11093" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sub-questions without equations, which is used in prompt learning instead of a general data augmentation tool. (2) While their generator directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence to encode and fuse their information, the structure of equation is much different from the scenario texts. We propose two different encoders where an interaction mechanism is designed to leverage numbers as a bridge to fuse the information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 292, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 292, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 292, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MWP Dataset: Several datasets are proposed to evaluate the model's numerical reasoning ability (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Amini et al., 2019; Miao et al., 2020). They only provide a single question to each scenario. Therefore, training and evaluating on such setting will lead that the solvers rely on shallow heuristics to generate equations (Patel et al., 2021). To mitigate this learning bias, Yang et al. (2022) propose a diverse MwP dataset (called UnbiasedMwP). However, manually collecting high-quality datasets is usually labor-intensive and time-consuming in practice. In contrast, our DQGF could automatically generate such diverse data. In this paper, we will use UnbiasedMwP to train equation-aware question generator and evaluate the whole DQGF. Besides, we also propose a diverse MwP dataset DiverseMath23k to evaluate the MwP solver." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 157, + 488 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 157, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 157, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1 shows the overview of the proposed Diverse Questions Generation Framework (DQGF). We firstly put the original MWP into the Diverse Equations Generator to generate diverse equations, then the generated equation and scenario description of the original MWP are fed into the trained equation-aware question generator to produce corresponding questions. In this way, we will obtain diverse questions with their equations, forming new candidate MwPs. Finally, these candidate MwPs are further filtered by the data filter. In what follows, we will introduce Diverse Equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator, and Data Filter respectively in Section 3.1, Section 3.2, and Section 3.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 232, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 232, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 232, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Diverse Equations Generator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diverse equations generator aims to generate diverse equations from the original MWP. Our principle is to generate as many as possible logical" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "equations. Motivated by this, we propose two equation generation strategies: sub-equation based and unit based strategy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sub-equation Based The equation of the original MWP usually includes some sub-equations, which represent the necessary steps to solve the problem (Cobbe et al., 2021). For instance, in Table 1(c), \"15+10\" is a sub-equation of the original equation, describing a uniform's price. Therefore, we extract these sub-equations from the original equation, which are very high-quality and diverse." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 233, + 526, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 233, + 526, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 233, + 526, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unit Based There are some physical relations between the numbers in an MWP. We could identify these relations, and then combine numbers with operators to get a new equation. Motivated by this, we propose to search the relations of numbers based on their units. Every number in MWPs has its unit. For example in Table 1, \"40\" has the unit \"students\" and \"15\" has the unit \"dollars\". We combine them in two situations. (1) Same unit: Two numbers with same unit always represent the same object. We combine them with the operator \"+\" to generate equations representing the totality questions like \"what is the total of A and B\". Besides, we combine them with \"-\" and \"/\" which represent the comparison questions like \"how much more A than B\" and \"how many times A than B\", respectively. (2) Different units: Two numbers with different units in a MWP always represent two objects that have subordinate relations. Therefore, we combine them with \"*\". This strategy will generate diverse equations, though it probably brings some unreasonable equations further generating noisy MWPs. Such noisy MWPs will be filtered by the final data filter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 526, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 526, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 526, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To be noted, both sub-equation based and unit based strategies rely on heuristic rules. Therefore, we do not need to train our diverse equations generator." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 502, + 634 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 502, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 502, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Equation-aware Question Generator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "General question generation in the Question-Answering area aims to generate a question from a given passage and a specified answer (Sun et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). By regarding the scenario description and equation as passage and answer respectively, we can formulate our task as a general question generation problem. Based on this, we propose an equation-aware question generator under a general encoder-decoder framework as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11094" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 290, + 236 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 290, + 236 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 290, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 290, + 236 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f237cfa8cffbebf80d048e18b0d4e7dc0249ee47d674e9f5d9e89b1c1b976b92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 242, + 272, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 242, + 272, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 242, + 272, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Equation-aware Question Generator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "propose two different encoders to encode the information from scenario and equation respectively, and an interaction mechanism to fuse their information further. For convenience, we form a MWP as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S,Q,E)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represent the scenario, question and their solution equation respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scenario Encoder We adopt a pre-trained language model BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as our scenario encoder. The unsupervised pre-training on large corpora makes the model capture linguistic knowledge, which provides rich textual representations. We represent the scenario " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a sequence of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = [s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_T]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and formulate the encoding process as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 493, + 290, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 493, + 290, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 493, + 290, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \\dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \\right] = B E R T \\left(\\left[ s _ {1}, s _ {2}, \\dots , s _ {T} \\right]\\right), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "0b16f99b629f54863b35a31f13338e09f7361d6a2f568dae3650b31d3e238a77.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the embedding of token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the encoder. Finally, the representation of scenario can be written as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 565, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 565, + 290, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 565, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "H ^ {s} = \\left[ h _ {1} ^ {s}, h _ {2} ^ {s}, \\dots , h _ {T} ^ {s} \\right]. \\qquad (2)", + "image_path": "b7e31b971f6632f652d7f3e85f89403a84f4901356d1f894362b13ff7ba8cab8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation Encoder The sequence form cannot model the structure of the equation well (Xie and Sun, 2019). Hence we transform it into an equation tree which is then encoded by a TreeLSTM (Tai et al., 2015). The equation is transformed into a binary tree representation as proposed in (Xie and Sun, 2019) and sequentialized as their pre-order traversal. Thus the equation can be represented as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E = [e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_n]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of the pre-order equation and a node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents a number or operator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+,-,*,/ )" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 291, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In details, we firstly adopt a BERT to encode each node:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 760, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 760, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 760, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "x _ {i} = B E R T \\left(e _ {i}\\right). \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "3da0e4909ff32868c6f9fec1535691a89a62ee03bc8820d92521f4270612a001.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, we encode the equation tree by a TreeLSTM:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 94, + 525, + 136 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 94, + 525, + 136 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 94, + 525, + 136 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h _ {i} ^ {e} = \\operatorname {T r e e L S T M} \\left(x _ {i}, \\sum_ {k \\in C (i)} h _ {k} ^ {e}\\right), \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "39b8fac39d83ece46c85e5f98825a757c3b1778f19fd12f068a0b9289f4b24be.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C(i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the index set of child nodes of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, the representation of equation can be written as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H^{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 525, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 196, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 196, + 525, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 196, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "H ^ {e} = \\left[ h _ {1} ^ {e}, h _ {2} ^ {e}, \\dots , h _ {n} ^ {e} \\right]. \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "fe42542dbda5ac87b479dfdac56b0061d9b7d80ac69f39f2cbd3dbe57ad292cd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 525, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interaction Mechanism In order to generate a question based on both scenario and equation, the interaction between them is crucial. Inspired by iterative deep learning (He and Schomaker, 2019; Schick and Schütze, 2021), we propose an interaction mechanism which uses numbers as bridge to fuse the information of both scenario and equation. It consists of the following two processes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 525, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scenario to Equation: After BERT encodes the whole scenario text, each token's embedding has the scenario's context information. For a number appearing in both scenario and equation, we replace its embedding in Equation (3) with its embedding in Equation (1). In this way, the scenario's context information is brought into the equation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 526, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation to Scenario: After bringing the information of the scenario to the equation and encoding the equation tree, we put the embedding of the number in the equation back into the scenario representation. In detail, we replace its embedding in Equation (1) with its embedding in Equation (4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Decoder We adopt the pre-trained language model BertGeneraiton (Rothe et al., 2020) as our decoder. Representing a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a sequence of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q = [q_{1}, q_{2}, \\dots, q_{m}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is generated as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 592, + 525, + 607 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 592, + 525, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 592, + 525, + 607 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "q _ {i} = \\text {B e r t G e n e r a t i o n} ([ H, q _ {i - 1} ]), \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "51266cfa542a6a20a24ce3199393f21815a53d0896088e94060ed756bc12a305.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the final representation of the scenario and equation by the concatenating the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 658, + 525, + 672 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 658, + 525, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 658, + 525, + 672 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "H = \\left[ H _ {s}, H _ {e} \\right]. \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "9260ba7f01cbb1efe051f86a30c1bce0bbdd24d7cd97a36f0d23f3551425a4b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To be noted, all of these pre-trained models in both encoders and decoders will be fine-tuned in the MwP dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 383, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 383, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 383, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Data Filter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Filtering out detrimental augmented data can improve the quality of data as well as the downstream" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11095" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance (Le Bras et al., 2020). However, it will take a great cost to do it by the human filtering due to the large-size of our augmented data. Therefore, we utilize an existing powerful MWP solver as an expert model to judge whether the predicted answer is same as the ground-truth (Axelrod et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2021). Inspired by Ou et al. (2022), we leverage a large-scale MWP pre-trained language model MWP-BERT (Liang et al., 2022) as our expert model, utilizing its powerful generalization ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Considering our generated MwPs have many new diverse questions, it is difficult for an existing solver to predict the answer accurately, resulting in many false filtering cases. To increase the recall on the generated samples, we apply beam-search strategy on the expert model to select top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicted equations (We set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in our experiments). Since the final answer can be from different solutions (Yang et al., 2022), we compare the answer calculated by equations instead of comparing equations directly. The augmented MwPs will pass our final filter if its final answer is equal to one answer from the selected top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " equations predicted by the expert model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 155, + 437 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 155, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 155, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 250, + 460 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 250, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 250, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Dataset and experimental setting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dataset We conduct experiments on an existing diverse questions dataset: UnbiasedMWP (Yang et al., 2022), which is split into 2,507, 200, 200 MWP groups for training, validation, and testing, respectively. Each group contains one original MWP and additional 1 to 8 diverse questions and equations with the same scenario. In total, it has 8,895, 684, 685 MwPs for training, validation, and testing, respectively. In this paper, we train our Equation-aware Question Generator and evaluate the whole DQGF on it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation Metrics For the whole DQGF, we apply the accuracy of a MWP solver to evaluate the quality of generated data. Without loss of generality, we choose GTS (Xie and Sun, 2019) with BERTEncoder (Devlin et al., 2019) as the MWP solver. Furthermore, we also propose a metric of Group-Accuracy to consider the prediction accuracy on all diverse questions in a MWP. For example, in Table 1(c), the normal accuracy simply regards it as three samples by evaluation of each question separately, while our Group-Accuracy consid-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 122 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 122 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 122 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DataAccuracyGroup-Accuracy
Unbiased-source34.929.5
Unbiased-DQGF62.742.0
Unbiased-GT78.464.0
", + "image_path": "15e71fa960a34cf70361e89183a3c0a573c5f074ab4988de8c16acab9fddeac1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 526, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 526, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 130, + 526, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of the accuracy (\\%) of solver training on different data: Unbiased-source means the original MwPs of each group in UnbiasedMWP, Unbiased-DQGF means generated MwPs with diverse questions by our DQGF, Unbiased-GT means MwPs with the annotated diverse questions and equations, indicating the up-bounded performance of our DQGF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 527, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 527, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 527, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ers this as only one sample and if all three equations are predicted correctly then the prediction is correct. Comparing to the common accuracy, the proposed Group-Accuracy can evaluate an solver whether truly understanding an MWP with the ability of learning by analogy. For the equation-aware question generator, we report BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L(Lin, 2004) which are based on exact word overlapping. BERT F1 score (Zhang et al., 2020b) is also used, which is based on DeBERTa (He et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 432, + 413 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 432, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 432, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 526, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 526, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 526, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the quality of generated data by the results of a common MWP solver on both accuracy and group-accuracy. In details, we train the MWP solver on three different data: the original data of each group in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-source), our generated MwPs data from the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-DQGF), and ground-truth MwPs in the UnbiasedMWP (called Unbiased-GT). Notably, the Unbiased-source only has MwPs with single question, while the latter two have MwPs with diverse questions. Since the Unbiased-GT directly uses the annotated diverse questions, its performance can be regarded as the up-bounded of the generation method. The results are shown in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Table 2, we can see that training on the data augmented by DQGF can significantly improve the accuracy of solver from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "34.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "62.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It indicates that DQGF can generate high quality MWP samples, which are useful for the training of a solver. In addition, the group-accuracy is also increased largely from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "29.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "42\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", even higher than the common accuracy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(34.9\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of Unbiased-source, showing that our method can generate MWP samples with valid diverse questions to help the solver better understand the problem by capturing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11096" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 252, + 135 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 252, + 135 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 252, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 252, + 135 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StrategyAccuracy
All62.7
(w/o)Sub-equations58.5
(w/o)Same unit47.3
(w/o)Different units60.4
", + "image_path": "364b80424525990bf9c5b0d346a26efc1528a3d1aa4cd93eacb5d39ca4e5d487.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 291, + 216 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 142, + 290, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 142, + 290, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 142, + 290, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Comparison of different equations generation strategies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 291, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 291, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 291, + 216 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsBLEUBERT F1ROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-L
Baseline52.387.477.259.470.6
EQG(w/o)IM54.287.978.461.472.0
EQG60.589.781.466.777.4
", + "image_path": "cb42e87632908b4afd1e2637dc425712604bf7390c67565b38f2807d6b46370a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 284 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Comparison of the different questions generator models. The baseline directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence. EQG means the Equation-aware Question Generator, while EQG(w/o)IM means removing Interaction Mechanism." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing the ability of learning by analogy. Comparing the Unbiased-DQGF and Unbiased-GT, we can see that there is still a gap between our method and the manual labelling data. Manual annotation method can produce more diverse and completely correct data, which leads to the better performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 198, + 411 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 198, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 198, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Fine-grained Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we will show the performance of the three components in our DQGF individually." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diverse Equations Generator Table 3 shows the comparison results among different equations generation strategies. As observed, each strategy can generate high quality and meaningful diverse equations. Concretely, the same unit based generation strategy brings the most benefit to DQGF because such strategy can generate a lot of meaningful but less noisy equations. The sub-equations based strategy and different units based strategy can also effectively generate meaningful equations, but with little improvement to the solver. There are two reasons: 1) The sub-equations based strategy can not generate enough equations since the sub-equations in the original equation are limited; and 2) The different units based strategy generates meaningful equations while bringing many noisy equations, which are thus hard to be filtered completely." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation-aware Question Generator We compare one baseline method that directly concatenates the scenario and equation text sequence (Shridhar et al., 2022) and utilizes BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as encoder, and BertGeneration (Rothe et al., 2020)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 504, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 504, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 504, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 504, + 174 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c334a70ec9c41cf26e9fb29cc8725264023bc65671fb9f80ce8b31575263e02e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 197 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Different beamsize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 197 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of expert model in Filter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "as decoder. Table 4 reports the comparison of the different questions generator models. We can see that EQG(w/o)IM improves the performance of baseline method. It indicates that the scenario encoder and equation encoder can better encode the structure of scenario and equation respectively than directly encoding their concatenated sequence. By integrating the interaction mechanism (IM), we can observe that it leads to a great improvement, achieving the best performance on every metric, which demonstrates that our interaction mechanism can fuse the information of scenario and equation well. Specifically, the BLEU score is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is not high; this is however explainable as it is a metric about text overlap. As observed, though semantically identical, some of our generated data is less overlap with the ground truth. This can also be reflected by its higher BERT F1 score which measures the semantic similarity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data Filter We examine the effect of beamsize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the filter in DQGF, which is shown in Figure 3. The experimental results show that DQGF can obtain the best performance when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is 5. DQFG can achieve good performance when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is between 4 and 6, since this appears to be a suitable interval in that a lot of correct candidates can pass the filter. When " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is between 1 and 3, filtering is still accurate but some correct data are filtered out. Therefore this interval can achieve competitive but not the best performance. When " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is between 7 and 8, the filtering is inaccurate. It causes that some noisy data pass the filter and impacts the final data quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 500, + 685 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 500, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 500, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 New MWP dataset DiverseMath23K" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 691, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 691, + 525, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 691, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We apply our trained DQGF model on Math23k to create a new MWP dataset (called DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions, which contains 38,320, 1,255, 1,728 MWPs for training, validation, and testing respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To ensure the quality of DiverseMath23k, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11097" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 105 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 105 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DataAccuracyGroup-AccuracyDeq-Accuracy
Ori63.656.969.4
Diverse68.460.248.1
", + "image_path": "7ff0badee2f7787bb7bfbbd741e1495bab88fde428790273cdee2641becd67f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 161, + 132, + 170 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 161, + 132, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 161, + 132, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original MWP:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 171, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 171, + 290, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 171, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The candy in the mall costs 14.60 dollars per box and cookies cost 29.80 dollars per box. Uncle Li wants to buy 4 boxes of candy and 2 boxes of cookies. Please calculate how much money Uncle Li needs to bring?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 181, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 181, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 181, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 181, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = (14.6^{*}4) + (29.8^{*}2)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 222, + 135, + 232 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 222, + 135, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 222, + 135, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generated Data:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 232, + 272, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 232, + 272, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 232, + 272, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: how many dollars it will cost to buy the cookies?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 243, + 143, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 243, + 143, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 243, + 143, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 243, + 143, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = 29.8^{*}2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 253, + 220, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 253, + 220, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 253, + 220, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation type: sub-equation, different units" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 264, + 267, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 264, + 267, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 264, + 267, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: how much more expensive each box of cookies is than each box of candy?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 284, + 152, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 284, + 152, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 284, + 152, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 284, + 152, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = 29.8 - 14.6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 294, + 160, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 294, + 160, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 294, + 160, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation type: same unit" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 305, + 274, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 305, + 274, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 305, + 274, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: how many times the price of each box of candy is the price of each box of cookies?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 325, + 155, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 325, + 155, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 325, + 155, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 325, + 155, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = 14.6 / 29.8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 335, + 160, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 335, + 160, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 335, + 160, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equation type: same unit" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 289, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Generated diverse questions with equations and their corresponding equation types" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "manually check generated MwPs, which is much easier and more efficient than complete human annotation. For the validation and test set, to make the evaluation rational, we rigorously check and correct each sample by ourselves. For the training set, we randomly check parts of samples and find that our generated MwPs are also meaningful and credible. The final dataset is available at https://github.com/zhouzihao501/DiverseMWP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results We compare the performance of the solver training on original Math23k and DiverseMath23k. In addition to the accuracy and Group-Accuracy, we report the Deq-Accuracy (Patel et al., 2021), which is a metric measuring the question sensitivity. The lower the Deq-Accuracy, the better the question sensitivity. Concretely, it measures the accuracy that the solver predicts the answer of a MWP by deleting questions (i.e., only input scenario). A better solver should have higher question sensitivity, thus a lower Deq-Accuracy is expected." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results are shown in Table 5. We can see that the accuracy can be improved from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "63.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "68.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and Group-Accuracy is boosted from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "56.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These results indicate that Di-verseMath23k can enable the model to better understand MwPs and improve its ability to solve different questions in the same scenario, even our" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 531, + 167 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 289, + 149 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 289, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 289, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Performance of solvers training on different data. Ori and DQGF means the original Math23k and DiverseMath23k, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 531, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 531, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 531, + 167 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Scenario: A factory produce 3000 parts, 750 in the first 6 days and the rest in 15 daysOriDiverse
Question1: How many will be produced on average per day in the future? (original question) Equation1: x=(3000-750)/15TrueTrue
Question2: How many more will be produced? Equation2: x=3000-750FalseTrue
Question3: What is the average number of parts produced per day for the first 6 days? Equation3: x=750/6FalseTrue
", + "image_path": "e75f2198defd84a249d730157ffcf5dc22dd1b11f57d763633c30e321010cc50.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 209 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 209 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 209 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Prediction results of solvers training on different data: Ori means original Math23k, and Diverse means DiverseMath23k." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "training set possibly contains many noisy samples. Additionally, it is noted that our method can significantly reduce the Deq-accuracy from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "69.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "48.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It indicates that DiverseMath23k effectively improves the question sensitivity of the solver." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 383, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 383, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 383, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generated Data Analysis Table 6 shows some real cases generated by our DQGF. We can see that our Diverse Equation Generator generate multiple meaningful equations. Moreover, the same unit based strategy can generate the most. After getting the diverse equations, our Equation-aware Question Generator successfully generates corresponding questions that match the scenario and equations. In particular, Equation-aware Question Generator works well in relating objects with their corresponding numbers. Therefore the appearance order of objects in questions are not reversed. Finally, these correct MwPs can successfully pass the data filter. More generated samples are shown in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 525, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prediction Results Analysis Table 7 reports the prediction result of solvers trained on different data. The solver trained on the original Math23k can correctly solve Question1, which has a similar MWP in training. However, it cannot solve Question2, which is simpler than Question1. Moreover, it cannot solve other questions like Question3. It indicates that the solver merely learns shallow heuristics but failing to understand the MWP. When trained on DiverseMath23k, the solver would gain the ability of learning by analogy, i.e., the solver could solve different questions even if the question is changed (see Question2, and Question3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 473, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 473, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 473, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion and Future Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we explore the ability of learning by analogy for MWP solvers. To do this, we propose a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11098" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "diverse questions generation framework (DQGF) to automatically generate diverse questions with their corresponding equations for a give MWP, which consists of Diverse equations Generator, Equation-aware Question Generator and Data Filter. Based on the trained DQGF, we further produce a new MWP dataset (DiverseMath23K) with diverse questions. Experimental results demonstrate that DQGF could generate high-quality diverse questions and improve effectively the overall performance of the MWP solver." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the future, we will focus on optimizing the model in the solver to improve its ability of learning by analogy and increase the group accuracy on the MwPs with diverse questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 285, + 131, + 297 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 285, + 131, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 285, + 131, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 291, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 291, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 291, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our DQGF still exists some limitations. While our generated data improves performance in diverse questions settings, there is still some noise in the generated data that affects the performance of original single question. In the following, we will give the limitations of our DQGF on its three components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 402, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 402, + 291, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 402, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The diversity of the question depends on the diversity of the equations. Our equation generator is based on heuristic rules, resulting that the generated equations are very simple. In the future, we will try a model based equations generator to generate more diverse equations. In the question generator, it can only recognise equations with the operator \"+\" due to the limited operator set in our training dataset UnbiasedMWP. In the future we will expand the operators so that the generation model can recognise more operators and be more universal. Filtering strategy is also important. Using the answers of expert model as a criterion for evaluation still exists bias and leads to the noisy data. In fact, we have tried to generate more diverse equations but all are filtered by the current data filter. We will look for better filtering strategies in the future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 170, + 670 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 170, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 170, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) no.62276258, Jiangsu Science and Technology Programme (Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province) no. BE2020006-4, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University's Key Program Special Fund no. KSF-T-06, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "novation programme no. 956123, and UK EPSRC under projects [EP/T026995/1]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 121, + 362, + 134 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 121, + 362, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 121, + 362, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 141, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 141, + 527, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 141, + 527, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 141, + 527, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. MathQA: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2357-2367, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 527, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 527, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 527, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amittai Axelrod, Xiaodong He, and Jianfeng Gao. 2011. Domain adaptation via pseudo in-domain data selection. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 355-362." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 326, + 527, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 326, + 527, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 326, + 527, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 369, + 527, + 414 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 369, + 527, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 369, + 527, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 527, + 513 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 527, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 527, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Steven Y. Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for NLP. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP* 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 968–988. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 527, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 527, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 527, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 527, + 632 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 527, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 527, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng He and Lambert Schomaker. 2019. Deepotsu: Document enhancement and binarization using iterative deep learning. Pattern recognition, 91:379-390." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 527, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 527, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 527, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tien-Yi Jen, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2021. Recycling numeracy data augmentation with symbolic verification for math word problem solving. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 653-657." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanghoon Kim, Hwanhee Lee, Joongbo Shin, and Kyomin Jung. 2019. Improving neural question generation using answer separation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 6602-6609." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11099" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 161 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Ioannis Konstas, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. A theme-rewriting approach for generating algebra word problems. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 1617-1628. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 291, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Subhro Roy, Aida Amini, Nate Kushman, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. Mawps: A math word problem repository. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1152-1157." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 291, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Adversarial examples for evaluating math word problem solvers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November; 2021, pages 2705-2712. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vivek Kumar, Rishabh Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2022. Practice makes a solver perfect: Data augmentation for math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 4194-4206. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 290, + 499 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 290, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 290, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1078-1088. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ailisi Li, Yanghua Xiao, Jiaqing Liang, and Yunwen Chen. 2022a. Semantic-based data augmentation for math word problems. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 36-51. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 574, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 574, + 291, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 574, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingjing Li, Yifan Gao, Lidong Bing, Irwin King, and Michael R. Lyu. 2019. Improving question generation with to the point context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 3214-3224. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhongli Li, Wenxuan Zhang, Chao Yan, Qingyu Zhou, Chao Li, Hongzhi Liu, and Yunbo Cao. 2022b. Seeking patterns, not just memorizing procedures: Contrastive learning for solving math word problems. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2486-2496. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenwen Liang, Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Wei Qin, Yunshi Lan, Jie Shao, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2022. Mwp-bert: Numeracy-augmented pre-training for math word problem solving. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 997-1009." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qianying Liu, Wenyu Guan, Sujian Li, Fei Cheng, Daisuke Kawahara, and Sadao Kurohashi. 2021a. Roda: Reverse operation based data augmentation for solving math word problems. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1-11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 526, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianqiao Liu, Qiang Fang, Wenbiao Ding, Hang Li, Zhongqin Wu, and Zitao Liu. 2021b. Mathematical word problem generation from commonsense knowledge graph and equations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4225-4240." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vijini Liyanage and Surangika Ranathunga. 2020. Multi-lingual mathematical word problem generation using long short term memory networks with enhanced input features. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4709-4716." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 526, + 471 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 526, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 526, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shen-Yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 975-984." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 526, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "DeKita G Moon-Rembert and Juan E Gilbert. 2019. Illmatics: A web-based math word problem generator for students' distal and proximal interests. In *E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education*, pages 842–848. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiao Ou, Jinchao Zhang, Yang Feng, and Jie Zhou. 2022. Counterfactual data augmentation via perspective transition for open-domain dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 1635-1648. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 663, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 663, + 526, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 663, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11100" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 124, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 124, + 290, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 124, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oleksandr Polozov, Eleanor O'Rourke, Adam M Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, Sumit Gulwani, and Zoran Popovic. 2015. Personalized mathematical word problem generation. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 188, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 188, + 290, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 188, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sascha Rothe, Shashi Narayan, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2020. Leveraging pre-trained checkpoints for sequence generation tasks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:264-280." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 290, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kumar Shridhar, Jakub Macina, Mennatallah El-Assady, Tanmay Sinha, Manu Kapur, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Automatic generation of socratic subquestions for teaching math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 4136-4149. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 432, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 432, + 290, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 432, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xingwu Sun, Jing Liu, Yajuan Lyu, Wei He, Yanjun Ma, and Shi Wang. 2018. Answer-focused and position-aware neural question generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3930-3939." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 495, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 495, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 495, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sowmya S Sundaram, Sairam Gurajada, Marco Fisichella, Savitha Sam Abraham, et al. 2022. Why are nlp models fumbling at elementary math? a survey of deep learning based word problem solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 290, + 667 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 290, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 290, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1556-1566. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minghuan Tan, Lei Wang, Lingxiao Jiang, and Jing Jiang. 2021. Investigating math word problems using pretrained multilingual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08928." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yan Wang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Shuming Shi. 2017. Deep neural solver for math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 845-854." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zichao Wang, Andrew S. Lan, and Richard G. Baraniuk. 2021. Math word problem generation with mathematical consistency and problem context constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5986-5999. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sandra Williams. 2011. Generating mathematical word problems. In 2011 AAAI Fall symposium series." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 254 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shufang Xie, Ang Lv, Yingce Xia, Lijun Wu, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, and Rui Yan. 2021. Target-side input augmentation for sequence to sequence generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 525, + 297 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 525, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 525, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhipeng Xie and Shichao Sun. 2019. A goal-driven tree-structured neural model for math word problems. In *IJCAI*, pages 5299–5305." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhicheng Yang, Jinghui Qin, Jiaqi Chen, and Xiaodan Liang. 2022. Unbiased math word problems benchmark for mitigating solving bias. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1401-1408. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dongxiang Zhang, Lei Wang, Luming Zhang, Bing Tian Dai, and Heng Tao Shen. 2019. The gap of semantic parsing: A survey on automatic math word problem solvers. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(9):2287-2305." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Yi Bin, Yan Wang, Jie Shao, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2020a. Graph-to-tree learning for solving math word problems. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 525, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020b. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 458, + 598 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 458, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 458, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Generated data by DQGF" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 606, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 606, + 525, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 606, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 shows five examples of the generated data by DQGF. Original data is the MWP in dataset which only has single question for each scenario. Generated data is the diverse questions with equations on original data generated by our DQGF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11101" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 458, + 754 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 458, + 754 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 458, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 458, + 754 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Original Data\nText: A pair of pants costs 58 dollars, and a jacket costs 4 times as much as a pair of pants.\nHow many dollars are spent on 5 sets of these clothes?\nEquation: x=5*(58+(58*4))
Generated Data\nQuestion: How much do a pair of pants and a jacket cost in total?\nEquation: x=58+58*4
Question: How much does a jacket cost?\nEquation: x=58*4
Original Data\nText: Dingding has read 180 pages of a book and has 150 pages left to read.\nHow many pages are there in this book?\nEquation: x=180+150
Generated Data\nQuestion: How many more pages have been read than have not been read?\nEquation: x=180-150
Question: How many times more pages have been read than have not been read?\nEquation: x=180/150
Original Data\nText: Qiangqiang's father and mother work outside. Father sends Qiangqiang 458 dollars a month and mother sends Qiangqiang 447 dollars a month. How much money do Qiangqiang's father and mother send to Qiangqiang each month?\nEquation: x=458+447
Generated Data\nQuestion: How much more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang each month than the father?\nEquation: x=447-458
Question: How many times more money does the mother send to Qiangqiang than the father each month?\nx=447/458
Question: How much more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother?\nEquation: x=458-447
Question: How many times more money does the father send to Qiangqiang each month than the mother?\nEquation: x=458/447
Original Data\nText: Mom bought a toothbrush for 3.6 dollars and a box of toothpaste for 9.5 dollars. How much is a toothbrush cheaper than a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=9.5-3.6
Generated Data\nQuestion: What is the ratio of the price of a box of toothpaste to a toothbrush?\nEquation: x=9.5/3.6
Question: How much do a toothbrush and a box of toothpaste cost in total?\nEquation: x=3.6+9.5
Question: How much more expensive is a toothbrush than a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=3.6-9.5
What is the ratio of the price of a toothbrush to a box of toothpaste?\nEquation: x=3.6/9.5
Original Data\nText: A storybook has 438 pages and Xiao Liang has read 202 pages. How many pages does Xiao Liang have left to read?\nEquation: x=438-202
Generated Data\nQuestion: What is the ratio of the number of pages Xiao Liang has read to the total number of pages in the storybook?\nEquation: x=202/438
Question: How many times is the total number of pages in the storybook than the number of pages Xiao Liang has read?\nEquation: x=438/202
", + "image_path": "b2e0f34eda56b3b97004a28ea8922d565607f946b018922a5a6f8a0c751a4d30.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 762, + 524, + 775 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 762, + 524, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 762, + 524, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Five generated MWP samples with Original data and Generated diverse questions with equations by DQGF" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11102" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 106, + 414, + 242 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work will not bring risk in life." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section3.4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 291, + 524, + 646 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section3,4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The artifacts we used are publicly and do not have specially items." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Section3,4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Our data is math problem data, does not contain any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 517, + 524, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 517, + 524, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 517, + 524, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 566, + 524, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 566, + 524, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 566, + 524, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Section 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 658, + 294, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 658, + 294, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 658, + 294, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 676, + 214, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 676, + 214, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 676, + 214, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is not important in our work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 698, + 524, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 698, + 524, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 698, + 524, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? It is not important in our work because the model is lightweight." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11103" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 133, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 133, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 133, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 130, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 130, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 130, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 130, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 130, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 130, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 246, + 522, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 246, + 522, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 246, + 522, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 120, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 120, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 120, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 281, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 281, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 281, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our paper not involve any issue about that." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 377, + 324, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 377, + 324, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 377, + 324, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The data does not involve participants' demographic." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 399, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 399, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 399, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 440, + 178, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 440, + 178, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 440, + 178, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our data is publicly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 462, + 521, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 462, + 521, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 462, + 521, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 237, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 237, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 476, + 237, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our data is about math problems" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 498, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 498, + 525, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 498, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 526, + 228, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 526, + 228, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 526, + 228, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is not important for our data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11104" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_content_list.json b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02cf5a4c7eb53e26100b934242b358f303124fea --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1700 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning from Children: Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 216, + 90, + 783, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hammad A. Ayyubi1, Rahul Lokesh1, Alireza Zareian2, Bo Wu3, Shih-Fu Chang1", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 154, + 848, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Columbia University 2 Snap Inc. 3 MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab", + "bbox": [ + 292, + 173, + 704, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{ha2578,rl3164}@columbia.edu", + "bbox": [ + 389, + 190, + 611, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Image-caption pretraining has been quite successfully used for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot image classification and object detection. However, image-caption pretraining is still a hard problem – it requires multiple concepts (nouns) from captions to be aligned to several objects in images. To tackle this problem, we go to the roots – the best learner, children. We take inspiration from cognitive science studies dealing with children's language learning to propose a curriculum learning framework. The learning begins with easy-to-align image caption pairs containing one concept per caption. The difficulty is progressively increased with each new phase by adding one more concept per caption. Correspondingly, the knowledge acquired in each learning phase is utilized in subsequent phases to effectively constrain the learning problem to aligning one new concept-object pair in each phase. We show that this learning strategy improves over vanilla image-caption training in various settings – pretraining from scratch, using a pretrained image or/and pretrained text encoder, low data regime etc. Code available at: https://github.com/hayyubi/cur_v1.git.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 668, + 258, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, there has been a tremendous interest in employing image-caption pretraining for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot object classification (Radford et al., 2021) and zero-shot object detection (Zareian et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). The idea is to learn a common semantic space where the visual embeddings of objects in images lie close to the textual embeddings of the concepts (objects' name/tag label) in captions they refer to. This learned semantic space is later exploited for zero-shot object recognition by finding the concept embedding nearest to the objects' embeddings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the recent success, image-caption pretraining is a complex problem as it entails aligning", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/be6ef742e425611727ff6beaa2b095a723c96ac7ec711b73732c729469c715de.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Top: Normal image-caption pertaining. Bottom: Proposed Curriculum Learning Framework. The curriculum eases the learning problem by requiring the model to align only one concept-object pair at a time." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 250, + 884, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "multiple concepts in a caption with multiple objects in an image, as shown in fig. 1. Different methods have tried to solve this problem from various angles - CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) and ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) by using more data, ALBEF (Li et al., 2021) by using more complex network architecture, Florence (Yuan et al., 2021) and CoCa (Yu et al., 2022) by using more tasks and ERNIE-ViL 2.0 (Shan et al., 2022) by using more data augmentations (views).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 561, + 884, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose an alternative approach based on a novel learning strategy that is architecture agnostic and does not require any additional data or compute. We take inspiration from cognitive science research studying how children learn language (concepts) in early stages by just observing their surroundings (images). Specifically, we refer to two studies showing that children learn rapidly if the object of interest is unambiguous (Pereira et al., 2014) and by applying co-referential statistics across multiple scenes (Smith and Yu, 2008).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 722, + 882, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implement these two ideas via a curriculum", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13378", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13378-13386", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 778, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 700, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "learning approach (demonstrated in fig. 1):", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. We train the model in multiple phases of increasing difficulty with each phase containing one more concept in the caption than the previous one. Moreover, each phase contains only one new concept, the rest seen in prior phases.", + "2. In each phase, we leverage the concept-object association learned in prior phases to recognize the seen concepts and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept (section 2.2.2)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 112, + 489, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These two strategies effectively reduce the problem of aligning multiple object-concept pairs per training sample to aligning only one such pair.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 489, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has applied curriculum leaarning to image-caption pretraining in this way. Srinivasan et al. (2022) apply a curriculum based on the difficulty of negative samples in contrastive loss. Whereas, Liu et al. (2021) design the curriculum based on the granularity of text: from words to phrases to sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 331, + 489, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although our proposed approach can be applied to any multimodal network architecture, we pick OVR-CNN (Zareian et al., 2021) due to its simplicity. We pretrain it with the proposed curriculum learning approach and evaluate on the downstream task of zero-shot object detection. We demonstrate that curriculum learning outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining on a variety of architectural settings – with and without a pretrained image encoder and/or a pretrained text encoder. We even show superior performance in low-data settings, suggesting our method can be leveraged in low-resource scenarios as well.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 444, + 489, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 665, + 218, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose a curriculum learning framework to improve image caption pretraining. In this work, we apply it to OVR-CNN as its architecture is simpler and easier/faster to train/evaluate. We begin the description of our approach with a brief background on OVR-CNN. Next, we discuss how we modify it to implement the proposed curriculum learning framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 692, + 489, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 OVR-RCNN Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 361, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OVR-RCNN is a dual-encoder (separate visual encoder and text encoder) multimodal architecture. First, it pretrains the encoders using image-captions and later utilizes them for the downstream task of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "object detection. We only discuss the pretraining procedure as we only utilize this component.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OVR-RCNN's visual encoder is ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016) and text encoder is either BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) or GloVE (Pennington et al., 2014). The visual encoder takes an image, $I$ with $w \\times h$ dimensions, as input and outputs a feature map of $w / 32 \\times h / 32$ regions. Each feature map is a vector which is transferred to language space using a projection layer. This gives the visual embeddings, $e_i^I$ , for each region $i$ . The tokenized caption, $C$ , is input to the text encoder which outputs an embedding $e_j^C$ for each token $j$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 884, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The token-image region pair is aligned via weak supervision. Specifically, a global alignment score between image and caption, $\\langle I,C\\rangle_{G}$ is calculated using a locally weighted average alignment score of image regions and tokens as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 294, + 882, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\langle I, C \\rangle_ {G} = \\frac {1}{n _ {C}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n _ {C}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} a _ {i, j} \\left\\langle e _ {i} ^ {I}, e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 578, + 385, + 882, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\langle .,.\\rangle_{L}$ is the dot product of two vectors, $n_I$ and $n_C$ are the number of image and caption tokens respectively, and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 882, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\na _ {i, j} = \\frac {\\exp \\left\\langle e _ {i} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L}}{\\sum_ {i ^ {\\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \\exp \\left\\langle e _ {i ^ {\\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L}} \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 601, + 482, + 882, + 516 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The model is trained using contrastive learning by maximizing the global alignment score, $\\langle I,C\\rangle_{G}$ between positive image-caption pairs and minimizing it between negative pairs sampled from the same training batch.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 882, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = - \\log \\frac {\\exp \\langle I , C \\rangle_ {G}}{\\sum_ {\\{I ^ {\\prime} , C ^ {\\prime} \\} \\in \\mathcal {N} _ {I , C}} \\exp \\langle I ^ {\\prime} , C ^ {\\prime} \\rangle_ {G} + \\exp \\langle I , C \\rangle_ {G}} \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 609, + 882, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where, $\\mathcal{N}_{I,C} = \\{I,C'|C' \\in \\mathcal{B}_C\\} \\cup \\{I',C|I' \\in \\mathcal{B}_I\\}$ and $\\mathcal{B}_C, \\mathcal{B}_I$ are batch captions and batch images respectively. This learning objective aligns paired image and caption together and also provides weak supervision for image-regions and caption-tokens association.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 884, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Curriculum Learning Framework", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 823, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OVR-CNN facilitates object-concept alignment through coarse image-region and concept alignment. However, as an object can span multiple image regions or multiple objects can span an image region, this strategy can be noisy. To eliminate this noise and focus on the contribution of our curriculum framework to object-concept alignment, we train the model using object region features instead of image region features. To this end, object", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13379", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8cc466d9b02c696e4e2ddbe256661f1cfcef8e9294120ad202b4405eb622d788.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 86, + 359, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a178945758a86328deee18166e57a8b3de82bd9e0d88f0453e6015d422e0fbcb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)", + "Figure 2: Curriculum Statistics. (a) #Captions Vs Phase (b) The number next to bar shows % of captions per phase with at least #shaded concepts seen previously. (c) % Captions per phase introducing 1 new concept" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 366, + 86, + 620, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/370ddae521d9e94a2dbf84a080dd6acee0ea5256eaf2a06a76ea572325489cd4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 628, + 86, + 880, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "region bounding box is used to ROI pool (Girshick, 2015a) the image region features. The resulting feature vector $e_{o}^{I}$ , for each object $o$ , is used to replace $e_{i}^{I}$ in eqs. (1) and (2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 487, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2.1 Curriculum Design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 348, + 326, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The learning is divided into $1,2,3\\ldots k$ phases. Each phase $p$ is trained with only those image-caption pairs having $p$ concepts per caption. To divide the data into phases, we use $\\mathrm{spacy}^1$ to PoS (Part of Speech) tag the captions. Depending upon the number of nouns in each caption, the caption and its paired image is grouped into the corresponding phase. This strategy of designing the curriculum also imparts the data an additional property empirically – at most only one new concept is introduced per caption in each phase (as demonstrated in fig. 2b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 367, + 489, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2.2 Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 569, + 450, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To recognize the concepts in captions previously seen in prior phases and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept, we formulate a novel Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss $(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{C}})$ . Specifically, we first calculate the previously learned object-concept alignment, $a_{o,j}$ from modified eq. (2), using either the trained model from the last iteration $(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}})$ or the trained model from the last phase $(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}})$ . Next, $a_{o,j}$ is used to compute:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 587, + 487, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\na _ {o, j} ^ {\\prime} = \\frac {\\exp \\langle e _ {o} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\rangle_ {L} \\exp \\left(- \\max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \\frac {t}{T}\\right)}{\\sum_ {o ^ {\\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \\exp \\langle e _ {o ^ {\\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\rangle_ {L} \\exp \\left(- \\max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \\frac {t}{T}\\right)}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 485, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where, $t$ is the current iteration number and $T$ is the total number of iterations in training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 784, + 485, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For a concept $j$ , which is already closely aligned to an object $o$ , $\\max_{o}(a_{o,j})$ is high. This leads to a low value of $a_{o,j}'$ , resulting in less attention being paid to concept $j$ in the current training iteration/phase. Vice versa for a concept that is not", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 487, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "well aligned with any object. $a_{o,j}^{\\prime}$ effectively redistributes the attention of learning to focus more on concepts that are not well aligned with any object. The term $t / T$ has a low value in the beginning of training and gradually scales to 1 by the end. This allows the network to ignore prior knowledge in the beginning while utilizing it in the latter stages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 884, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use $a_{o,j}^{\\prime}$ to replace $a_{o,j}$ in modified eq. (1), and then use eq. (3) to compute $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{C}}$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 882, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 442, + 655, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Pretraining Dataset and Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 473, + 873, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the COCO Captions dataset (Chen et al., 2015) for pretraining. It contains 118,287 images and $5\\mathrm{x}$ captions. To obtain bounding box regions for objects in images, we use COCO Objects (Lin et al., 2014) dataset as it uses the same set of images as COCO Captions. We divide the data into $k = 4$ phases using the strategy discussed in section 2.2.1. Figure 2a shows number of captions assigned to each phase. As shown in fig. 2b, the majority of captions in each phase have at least k-1 concepts previously seen, allowing the curriculum to introduce at most one new concept per training sample. Further, as more concepts are introduced with each passing phase, the percent of captions per phase actually introducing a new concept decreases (as depicted in fig. 2c). By phase 4, this percent reduces to $< 5\\%$ . Additional phases of training may not contain enough captions actually introducing a new concept in the curriculum way, making these phases similar to regular image-caption training. Hence, we limit to 4 phases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train the model using SGD optimizer, with a batch size of 32 for 4 epochs in each phase, a learning rate of 0.005, a step scheduler, and the loss $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1https://spacy.io/usage", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 312, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13380", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/99128db23a7b7409106d923b225f402c06a5dac58043fffec90f72c03a0f155f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelPretrained Visual BBLanguage BackboneAccuracy
OVR-CNN0XGloVE20.62±0.86
OursXGloVE21.64±1.02
OVR-CNN0XBERT22.73±0.06
OursXBERT23.74±0.48
OVR-CNN0✓BERT34.46±0.11
Ours✓BERT35.49±0.21
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 80, + 477, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/62d372ffc4b5033d912472d7dae20f478c527d8f7c80c16be81a3cd3cd2bc12a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Curriculum learning vs. baseline in various settings with/without pretrained encoders. BB: backbone" + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 2: Phase wise top-5 accuracy. $P_{i}$ Obj.: Phase i Objects." + ], + "table_body": "
ModelP1 Obj.P2 Obj.
OVR-CNN049.3616.61
Ours50.926.1
", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 254, + 307, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/926ece2e1cfcdd1e7fe2484c546764cd981a39bb2f924946fb586fd8f2ccb6ea.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 3: Object bounding boxes from RPN." + ], + "table_body": "
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN013.10
Ours17.45
", + "bbox": [ + 344, + 255, + 473, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Downstream Task, Dataset and Transfer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 359, + 477, + 373 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the performance of the model on zero-shot object detection task on COCO Objects, val split (4836 images; 33374 instances of 65 object class). The task involves object bounding box predictions besides classifying these object regions to a label (concept). However, our method is aimed only at improving the alignment of object regions to a concept. As such, we eliminate any performance noise from bounding box predictions by only evaluating the classification accuracy of object regions given ground truth object bounding boxes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 487, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transfer to Downstream Task: We extract object features from image and object bounding box using visual backbone and use it to find the closest class label vector (obtained via language backbone).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 487, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Baseline and Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 637, + 349, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our baseline is OVR-CNN, a regular image-caption pretrained model. However, since our method uses object region features instead of image patch features for multimodal alignment (section 2.2), we also pretrain OVR-CNN with object regions to obtain OVR- $\\mathrm{CNN}_O$ . It is transferred to downstream task similar to our proposed model (section 3.2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 487, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our proposed curriculum framework outperforms the baseline in various settings, as shown in table 1. The accuracy numbers reported are averaged across three seeds. This demonstrates that our proposed learning strategy works across encoders trained from scratch or pretrained ones.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 487, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance Gain Analysis. We analyze model performance on object classes introduced during pretraining in phase 1 and phase 2 separately.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8caad75947f158e323a72ad04c9c73845aa8a5e9103d0d5940f98beec08732d7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Performance comparison in low data setting." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 85, + 857, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/13a6bfc024676781e3530402a12e75cbaf6f2be6b5f57d00f3991c2706c27a93.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 4: Ablation of proposed loss." + ], + "table_body": "
ModelCur.LossAccuracy
OVR-CNN0L19.73
OVR-CNN0LCR20.65
Ours✓L21.02
Ours✓LCR21.58
Ours✓LCP22.57
", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 212, + 833, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As reported in table 2, the improvement in phase 2 objects is $\\sim 10x$ . This illustrates that our curriculum strategy improves alignment of multiple concepts in a caption by focusing on one at a time.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 348, + 880, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Low Data Setting. Our model outperforms the baseline even if both uses $50\\%$ , $25\\%$ or $10\\%$ data (fig. 3), indicating its utility when data is scarce.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 880, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Region proposals instead of ground-truth object regions. We use a RPN model (Girshick, 2015b) trained class-agnostically on Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2016) to generate object regions. The superior performance of our model against baseline, reported in table 3, demonstrates that our approach is effective even when ground-truth object regions are not available.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 882, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Loss Ablation. From table 4, we can conclude that our curriculum design works (Ours $+\\mathcal{L}>$ OVR $\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}$ ); our proposed curriculum aware loss works (Ours $+\\mathcal{L}<$ Ours $+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}$ ) irrespective of curriculum (OVR- $\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}<$ OVR- $\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}$ ); curriculum aware loss works better when previous knowledge is taken from the last phase instead of the last iteration (Ours $+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}}>$ Ours $+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 882, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualitative Analysis. We provide qualitative analysis as well to shed more insights into the cases where our approach works/doesn't work. From Figure 4, we find that our model performs better than OVR-CNN $_O$ in certain cases, especially when the objects are from Phase 2 - \"snowboard\", \"cup\", \"skis\" etc. This provides further evidence towards our claim that our approach improves the alignment of Phase 2 objects.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 724, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection As mentioned before, we have focused our experiments on evaluating object", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13381", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/33706757b5a1030c0fbcf2b1a9902d44a8e0a9b5ce5077b38daaf84566979fb7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Qualitative analysis of cases where our approach works/doesn't work. The top two rows show samples where our model is successfully able to align the objects with the correct concept while OVR-CNN $_O$ makes mistakes. Interestingly, most of these objects are from Phase 2 - \"snowboard\", \"cup\", \"skis\" etc. The bottom row shows cases where our model makes mistakes. Note: only relevant, not all, objects are shown from each image." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 884, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/dbe3b298e47d3509d6b435c9d6fe288a8f4850ae05f4f087c8c7e9d859175a86.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelBaseTargetGeneralized
BaseTargetAll
OVR-CNN46.827.546.022.839.9
Ours48.8926.6548.1821.9941.33
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 393, + 485, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "concept alignment rather than on traditional object detection mAP metric. This was done to avoid unnecessary performance noise arising from training a RPN, which is required for mAP evaluation. However, to test the limits of our model, we evaluate on this noisy mAP metric as well. We keep all the settings similar as Zareian et al. (2021), except we pretrain using our curriculum learning approach. The results are reported in Table 5. We find that our model performs better in the most generic Generalized ('All') set (41.33 vs 39.9), signifying the effectiveness of our approach even in this noisy setting. We further observe that we perform better in the base classes while lagging behind in the target classes. A deeper analysis shows that most of the Phase 2 objects, on which we make major improvements, lie in the base classes. This explains the improved performance on base classes and slight depreciation in target classes performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 513, + 489, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training with image grid regions. Our curriculum based pretraining method was aimed at improving object-concept alignment by focussing on one object at time. To facilitate this, we pretrained directly with object regions. Image regions were not used to eliminate noise arising from an ob", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4e832216c30ac2bfb9588067cce6c69fdcd572fa2e055580cee2498ae19d945f.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN23.45
Ours23.33
", + "bbox": [ + 611, + 393, + 781, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Training with image grid regions instead of object regions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 882, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ject spanning multiple regions or multiple objects being present in the same image region (object presence noise). However, we further push the limits of our model to assess how it performs when trained with noisy image regions instead of object regions. The results are reported in Table 6. We find that our model performs slightly worse than OVR-CNN (23.33 vs 23.45). We attribute this performance degradation to the inherent object presence noise in image regions as discussed earlier.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 497, + 882, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 664, + 640, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We proposed a curriculum learning framework to improve image-caption pretraining, using the number of concepts in captions. We also designed a novel curriculum aware loss to focus learning on the unaligned concept in each phase. Our approach outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining in various settings, including with/without pretrained encoders and small data. Further, we extensively analysed our model to study the contribution of each component.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 689, + 882, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 862, + 613, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although our proposed curriculum can be applied to any multimodal architecture, curriculum aware", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13382", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "loss requires modifications for use with dual encoder architectures that don't use cross-modal attention. Additionally, we use an off-the-shelf Part-of-Speech tagger to divide the data into different phases. As such, the correctness of this division is dependent on the quality of tagger. A poor tagger can negatively impact the curriculum design. Moreover, our approach doesn't apply to possible image-captions dataset which contain only short captions, containing possibly only one noun.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 259, + 280, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by the U.S. DARPA GAILA Program No.HR00111990058. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation here on.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 286, + 489, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 460, + 213, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dólár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ross Girshick. 2015a. Fast r-cnn. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).", + "Ross Girshick. 2015b. Fast r-cnn. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1440-1448.", + "Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778.", + "Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yunhsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 483, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalanditis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, Michael Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations.", + "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Lianian Harold Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Haotian Zhang, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Yiwu Zhong, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Grounded language-image pre-training. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. arXiv.", + "Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision, pages 740-755. Springer.", + "Tongtong Liu, Fangxiang Feng, and Xiaojie Wang. 2021. Multi-stage pre-training over simplified multimodal pre-training models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2556-2565, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "A. F. Pereira, L. B. Smith, and C. Yu. 2014. A bottom-up view of toddler word learning. In *Psychonomic bulletin* & review.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision.", + "Bin Shan, Weichong Yin, Yu Sun, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2022. Ernie-vil 2.0: Multi-view contrastive learning for image-text pre-training.", + "Linda B. Smith and Chen Yu. 2008. Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. In Cognition, volume 106, pages 1558-1568.", + "Tejas Srinivasan, Xiang Ren, and Jesse Thomason. 2022. Curriculum learning for data-efficient vision-language alignment." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13383", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models.", + "Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision.", + "Alireza Zareian, Kevin Dela Rosa, Derek Hao Hu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2021. Open-vocabulary object detection using captions. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13384", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After conclusion.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 278, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work uses well-established datasets which have not been known to be risky.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 739, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract and Section 1", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 319, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 255, + 670, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We used ChatGPT to improve the sentence structures and correct grammatical mistakes in all sections of the paper.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 880, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 315, + 487, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 3.3", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 337, + 218, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 362, + 529, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 1", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 380, + 221, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 406, + 778, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 1; the code for the model we used is released publicly along with the paper.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 423, + 766, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 449, + 880, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The code we used is in public domain. We plan to publicly release our original artifacts.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 514, + 801, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 539, + 880, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The datasets we have used is public and have been extensively analysed by prior research.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 589, + 815, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 615, + 880, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method covers only such domain as the data used (which has been previously analysed).", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 648, + 833, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 673, + 880, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 3.1 and 3.2", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 756, + 295, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 780, + 492, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 3", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 803, + 205, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 829, + 880, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our model is a relatively small model which doesn't incur much computational cost.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 862, + 771, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 884, + 877, + 908 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13385", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We discuss this partly in Section 3. By and large, we use the same hyperparameters as used by the baseline.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 116, + 880, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 158, + 882, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 3.3", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 208, + 236, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 233, + 882, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 2.2.1", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 282, + 250, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 309, + 877, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 330, + 215, + 346 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 357, + 882, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 390, + 248, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 416, + 880, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 464, + 248, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 491, + 880, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 539, + 248, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 565, + 873, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 583, + 248, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 609, + 880, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 640, + 248, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13386", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_model.json b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07d0a6314774d1a8a67c2fada4ab660b76d4acda --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2000 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.091, + 0.784, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning from Children: Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.155, + 0.85, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hammad A. Ayyubi1, Rahul Lokesh1, Alireza Zareian2, Bo Wu3, Shih-Fu Chang1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.294, + 0.174, + 0.705, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Columbia University 2 Snap Inc. 3 MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.391, + 0.191, + 0.613, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ha2578,rl3164}@columbia.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Image-caption pretraining has been quite successfully used for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot image classification and object detection. However, image-caption pretraining is still a hard problem – it requires multiple concepts (nouns) from captions to be aligned to several objects in images. To tackle this problem, we go to the roots – the best learner, children. We take inspiration from cognitive science studies dealing with children's language learning to propose a curriculum learning framework. The learning begins with easy-to-align image caption pairs containing one concept per caption. The difficulty is progressively increased with each new phase by adding one more concept per caption. Correspondingly, the knowledge acquired in each learning phase is utilized in subsequent phases to effectively constrain the learning problem to aligning one new concept-object pair in each phase. We show that this learning strategy improves over vanilla image-caption training in various settings – pretraining from scratch, using a pretrained image or/and pretrained text encoder, low data regime etc. Code available at: https://github.com/hayyubi/cur_v1.git." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.669, + 0.26, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, there has been a tremendous interest in employing image-caption pretraining for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot object classification (Radford et al., 2021) and zero-shot object detection (Zareian et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). The idea is to learn a common semantic space where the visual embeddings of objects in images lie close to the textual embeddings of the concepts (objects' name/tag label) in captions they refer to. This learned semantic space is later exploited for zero-shot object recognition by finding the concept embedding nearest to the objects' embeddings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the recent success, image-caption pretraining is a complex problem as it entails aligning" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.252, + 0.885, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.486, + 0.884, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Top: Normal image-caption pertaining. Bottom: Proposed Curriculum Learning Framework. The curriculum eases the learning problem by requiring the model to align only one concept-object pair at a time." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.562, + 0.885, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "multiple concepts in a caption with multiple objects in an image, as shown in fig. 1. Different methods have tried to solve this problem from various angles - CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) and ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) by using more data, ALBEF (Li et al., 2021) by using more complex network architecture, Florence (Yuan et al., 2021) and CoCa (Yu et al., 2022) by using more tasks and ERNIE-ViL 2.0 (Shan et al., 2022) by using more data augmentations (views)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.724, + 0.884, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose an alternative approach based on a novel learning strategy that is architecture agnostic and does not require any additional data or compute. We take inspiration from cognitive science research studying how children learn language (concepts) in early stages by just observing their surroundings (images). Specifically, we refer to two studies showing that children learn rapidly if the object of interest is unambiguous (Pereira et al., 2014) and by applying co-referential statistics across multiple scenes (Smith and Yu, 2008)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implement these two ideas via a curriculum" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13378" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13378-13386" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.701, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "learning approach (demonstrated in fig. 1):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.113, + 0.49, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We train the model in multiple phases of increasing difficulty with each phase containing one more concept in the caption than the previous one. Moreover, each phase contains only one new concept, the rest seen in prior phases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.206, + 0.49, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. In each phase, we leverage the concept-object association learned in prior phases to recognize the seen concepts and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept (section 2.2.2)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.113, + 0.49, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.283, + 0.49, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These two strategies effectively reduce the problem of aligning multiple object-concept pairs per training sample to aligning only one such pair." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.332, + 0.49, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has applied curriculum leaarning to image-caption pretraining in this way. Srinivasan et al. (2022) apply a curriculum based on the difficulty of negative samples in contrastive loss. Whereas, Liu et al. (2021) design the curriculum based on the granularity of text: from words to phrases to sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.445, + 0.49, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although our proposed approach can be applied to any multimodal network architecture, we pick OVR-CNN (Zareian et al., 2021) due to its simplicity. We pretrain it with the proposed curriculum learning approach and evaluate on the downstream task of zero-shot object detection. We demonstrate that curriculum learning outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining on a variety of architectural settings – with and without a pretrained image encoder and/or a pretrained text encoder. We even show superior performance in low-data settings, suggesting our method can be leveraged in low-resource scenarios as well." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.667, + 0.219, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.693, + 0.49, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose a curriculum learning framework to improve image caption pretraining. In this work, we apply it to OVR-CNN as its architecture is simpler and easier/faster to train/evaluate. We begin the description of our approach with a brief background on OVR-CNN. Next, we discuss how we modify it to implement the proposed curriculum learning framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.834, + 0.363, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 OVR-RCNN Background" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OVR-RCNN is a dual-encoder (separate visual encoder and text encoder) multimodal architecture. First, it pretrains the encoders using image-captions and later utilizes them for the downstream task of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "object detection. We only discuss the pretraining procedure as we only utilize this component." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.885, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OVR-RCNN's visual encoder is ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016) and text encoder is either BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) or GloVE (Pennington et al., 2014). The visual encoder takes an image, \\(I\\) with \\(w \\times h\\) dimensions, as input and outputs a feature map of \\(w / 32 \\times h / 32\\) regions. Each feature map is a vector which is transferred to language space using a projection layer. This gives the visual embeddings, \\(e_i^I\\), for each region \\(i\\). The tokenized caption, \\(C\\), is input to the text encoder which outputs an embedding \\(e_j^C\\) for each token \\(j\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.295, + 0.884, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The token-image region pair is aligned via weak supervision. Specifically, a global alignment score between image and caption, \\(\\langle I,C\\rangle_{G}\\) is calculated using a locally weighted average alignment score of image regions and tokens as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.579, + 0.386, + 0.884, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\langle I, C \\rangle_ {G} = \\frac {1}{n _ {C}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n _ {C}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} a _ {i, j} \\left\\langle e _ {i} ^ {I}, e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.427, + 0.883, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\langle .,.\\rangle_{L}\\) is the dot product of two vectors, \\(n_I\\) and \\(n_C\\) are the number of image and caption tokens respectively, and" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.603, + 0.483, + 0.884, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\na _ {i, j} = \\frac {\\exp \\left\\langle e _ {i} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L}}{\\sum_ {i ^ {\\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \\exp \\left\\langle e _ {i ^ {\\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L}} \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.523, + 0.884, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The model is trained using contrastive learning by maximizing the global alignment score, \\(\\langle I,C\\rangle_{G}\\) between positive image-caption pairs and minimizing it between negative pairs sampled from the same training batch." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.611, + 0.884, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = - \\log \\frac {\\exp \\langle I , C \\rangle_ {G}}{\\sum_ {\\{I ^ {\\prime} , C ^ {\\prime} \\} \\in \\mathcal {N} _ {I , C}} \\exp \\langle I ^ {\\prime} , C ^ {\\prime} \\rangle_ {G} + \\exp \\langle I , C \\rangle_ {G}} \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.885, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where, \\(\\mathcal{N}_{I,C} = \\{I,C'|C' \\in \\mathcal{B}_C\\} \\cup \\{I',C|I' \\in \\mathcal{B}_I\\}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{B}_C, \\mathcal{B}_I\\) are batch captions and batch images respectively. This learning objective aligns paired image and caption together and also provides weak supervision for image-regions and caption-tokens association." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.825, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Curriculum Learning Framework" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OVR-CNN facilitates object-concept alignment through coarse image-region and concept alignment. However, as an object can span multiple image regions or multiple objects can span an image region, this strategy can be noisy. To eliminate this noise and focus on the contribution of our curriculum framework to object-concept alignment, we train the model using object region features instead of image region features. To this end, object" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13379" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.087, + 0.36, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.217, + 0.25, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.367, + 0.087, + 0.621, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.217, + 0.505, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.63, + 0.087, + 0.882, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.746, + 0.217, + 0.764, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.231, + 0.882, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Curriculum Statistics. (a) #Captions Vs Phase (b) The number next to bar shows % of captions per phase with at least #shaded concepts seen previously. (c) % Captions per phase introducing 1 new concept" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.276, + 0.489, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "region bounding box is used to ROI pool (Girshick, 2015a) the image region features. The resulting feature vector \\( e_{o}^{I} \\), for each object \\( o \\), is used to replace \\( e_{i}^{I} \\) in eqs. (1) and (2)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.349, + 0.327, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2.1 Curriculum Design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.368, + 0.49, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The learning is divided into \\(1,2,3\\ldots k\\) phases. Each phase \\(p\\) is trained with only those image-caption pairs having \\(p\\) concepts per caption. To divide the data into phases, we use \\(\\mathrm{spacy}^1\\) to PoS (Part of Speech) tag the captions. Depending upon the number of nouns in each caption, the caption and its paired image is grouped into the corresponding phase. This strategy of designing the curriculum also imparts the data an additional property empirically – at most only one new concept is introduced per caption in each phase (as demonstrated in fig. 2b)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.57, + 0.451, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2.2 Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.588, + 0.489, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To recognize the concepts in captions previously seen in prior phases and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept, we formulate a novel Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss \\((\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{C}})\\). Specifically, we first calculate the previously learned object-concept alignment, \\(a_{o,j}\\) from modified eq. (2), using either the trained model from the last iteration \\((\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}})\\) or the trained model from the last phase \\((\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}})\\). Next, \\(a_{o,j}\\) is used to compute:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.742, + 0.486, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\na _ {o, j} ^ {\\prime} = \\frac {\\exp \\langle e _ {o} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\rangle_ {L} \\exp \\left(- \\max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \\frac {t}{T}\\right)}{\\sum_ {o ^ {\\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \\exp \\langle e _ {o ^ {\\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\rangle_ {L} \\exp \\left(- \\max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \\frac {t}{T}\\right)}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.785, + 0.487, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where, \\( t \\) is the current iteration number and \\( T \\) is the total number of iterations in training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.817, + 0.489, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For a concept \\( j \\), which is already closely aligned to an object \\( o \\), \\( \\max_{o}(a_{o,j}) \\) is high. This leads to a low value of \\( a_{o,j}' \\), resulting in less attention being paid to concept \\( j \\) in the current training iteration/phase. Vice versa for a concept that is not" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.276, + 0.885, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "well aligned with any object. \\(a_{o,j}^{\\prime}\\) effectively redistributes the attention of learning to focus more on concepts that are not well aligned with any object. The term \\(t / T\\) has a low value in the beginning of training and gradually scales to 1 by the end. This allows the network to ignore prior knowledge in the beginning while utilizing it in the latter stages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.391, + 0.884, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use \\(a_{o,j}^{\\prime}\\) to replace \\(a_{o,j}\\) in modified eq. (1), and then use eq. (3) to compute \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{C}}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.443, + 0.656, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.474, + 0.875, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Pretraining Dataset and Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.515, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the COCO Captions dataset (Chen et al., 2015) for pretraining. It contains 118,287 images and \\(5\\mathrm{x}\\) captions. To obtain bounding box regions for objects in images, we use COCO Objects (Lin et al., 2014) dataset as it uses the same set of images as COCO Captions. We divide the data into \\(k = 4\\) phases using the strategy discussed in section 2.2.1. Figure 2a shows number of captions assigned to each phase. As shown in fig. 2b, the majority of captions in each phase have at least k-1 concepts previously seen, allowing the curriculum to introduce at most one new concept per training sample. Further, as more concepts are introduced with each passing phase, the percent of captions per phase actually introducing a new concept decreases (as depicted in fig. 2c). By phase 4, this percent reduces to \\(< 5\\%\\). Additional phases of training may not contain enough captions actually introducing a new concept in the curriculum way, making these phases similar to regular image-caption training. Hence, we limit to 4 phases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train the model using SGD optimizer, with a batch size of 32 for 4 epochs in each phase, a learning rate of 0.005, a step scheduler, and the loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.313, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1https://spacy.io/usage" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13380" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.082, + 0.478, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelPretrained Visual BBLanguage BackboneAccuracy
OVR-CNN0XGloVE20.62±0.86
OursXGloVE21.64±1.02
OVR-CNN0XBERT22.73±0.06
OursXBERT23.74±0.48
OVR-CNN0✓BERT34.46±0.11
Ours✓BERT35.49±0.21
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.218, + 0.49, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Curriculum learning vs. baseline in various settings with/without pretrained encoders. BB: backbone" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.255, + 0.308, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelP1 Obj.P2 Obj.
OVR-CNN049.3616.61
Ours50.926.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.346, + 0.256, + 0.474, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN013.10
Ours17.45
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.314, + 0.325, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Phase wise top-5 accuracy. \\(P_{i}\\) Obj.: Phase i Objects." + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.333, + 0.314, + 0.489, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Object bounding boxes from RPN." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.314, + 0.489, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.36, + 0.478, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Downstream Task, Dataset and Transfer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.382, + 0.489, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the performance of the model on zero-shot object detection task on COCO Objects, val split (4836 images; 33374 instances of 65 object class). The task involves object bounding box predictions besides classifying these object regions to a label (concept). However, our method is aimed only at improving the alignment of object regions to a concept. As such, we eliminate any performance noise from bounding box predictions by only evaluating the classification accuracy of object regions given ground truth object bounding boxes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.56, + 0.488, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transfer to Downstream Task: We extract object features from image and object bounding box using visual backbone and use it to find the closest class label vector (obtained via language backbone)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.638, + 0.351, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Baseline and Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.66, + 0.489, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our baseline is OVR-CNN, a regular image-caption pretrained model. However, since our method uses object region features instead of image patch features for multimodal alignment (section 2.2), we also pretrain OVR-CNN with object regions to obtain OVR- \\(\\mathrm{CNN}_O\\). It is transferred to downstream task similar to our proposed model (section 3.2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.489, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our proposed curriculum framework outperforms the baseline in various settings, as shown in table 1. The accuracy numbers reported are averaged across three seeds. This demonstrates that our proposed learning strategy works across encoders trained from scratch or pretrained ones." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance Gain Analysis. We analyze model performance on object classes introduced during pretraining in phase 1 and phase 2 separately." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.086, + 0.858, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.191, + 0.88, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Performance comparison in low data setting." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.558, + 0.213, + 0.835, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelCur.LossAccuracy
OVR-CNN0L19.73
OVR-CNN0LCR20.65
Ours✓L21.02
Ours✓LCR21.58
Ours✓LCP22.57
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.575, + 0.317, + 0.816, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Ablation of proposed loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.349, + 0.882, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As reported in table 2, the improvement in phase 2 objects is \\(\\sim 10x\\). This illustrates that our curriculum strategy improves alignment of multiple concepts in a caption by focusing on one at a time." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.882, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Low Data Setting. Our model outperforms the baseline even if both uses \\(50\\%\\), \\(25\\%\\) or \\(10\\%\\) data (fig. 3), indicating its utility when data is scarce." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.465, + 0.884, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Region proposals instead of ground-truth object regions. We use a RPN model (Girshick, 2015b) trained class-agnostically on Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2016) to generate object regions. The superior performance of our model against baseline, reported in table 3, demonstrates that our approach is effective even when ground-truth object regions are not available." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.595, + 0.884, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Loss Ablation. From table 4, we can conclude that our curriculum design works (Ours \\(+\\mathcal{L}>\\) OVR\\(\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}\\)); our proposed curriculum aware loss works (Ours \\(+\\mathcal{L}<\\) Ours \\(+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}\\)) irrespective of curriculum (OVR-\\(\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}<\\) OVR-\\(\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}\\)); curriculum aware loss works better when previous knowledge is taken from the last phase instead of the last iteration (Ours \\(+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}}>\\) Ours \\(+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}\\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.725, + 0.883, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitative Analysis. We provide qualitative analysis as well to shed more insights into the cases where our approach works/doesn't work. From Figure 4, we find that our model performs better than OVR-CNN\\(_O\\) in certain cases, especially when the objects are from Phase 2 - \"snowboard\", \"cup\", \"skis\" etc. This provides further evidence towards our claim that our approach improves the alignment of Phase 2 objects." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection As mentioned before, we have focused our experiments on evaluating object" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13381" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.324, + 0.884, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Qualitative analysis of cases where our approach works/doesn't work. The top two rows show samples where our model is successfully able to align the objects with the correct concept while OVR-CNN\\(_O\\) makes mistakes. Interestingly, most of these objects are from Phase 2 - \"snowboard\", \"cup\", \"skis\" etc. The bottom row shows cases where our model makes mistakes. Note: only relevant, not all, objects are shown from each image." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.394, + 0.487, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelBaseTargetGeneralized
BaseTargetAll
OVR-CNN46.827.546.022.839.9
Ours48.8926.6548.1821.9941.33
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.466, + 0.487, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.514, + 0.49, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "concept alignment rather than on traditional object detection mAP metric. This was done to avoid unnecessary performance noise arising from training a RPN, which is required for mAP evaluation. However, to test the limits of our model, we evaluate on this noisy mAP metric as well. We keep all the settings similar as Zareian et al. (2021), except we pretrain using our curriculum learning approach. The results are reported in Table 5. We find that our model performs better in the most generic Generalized ('All') set (41.33 vs 39.9), signifying the effectiveness of our approach even in this noisy setting. We further observe that we perform better in the base classes while lagging behind in the target classes. A deeper analysis shows that most of the Phase 2 objects, on which we make major improvements, lie in the base classes. This explains the improved performance on base classes and slight depreciation in target classes performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training with image grid regions. Our curriculum based pretraining method was aimed at improving object-concept alignment by focussing on one object at time. To facilitate this, we pretrained directly with object regions. Image regions were not used to eliminate noise arising from an ob" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.394, + 0.782, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN23.45
Ours23.33
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.453, + 0.883, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Training with image grid regions instead of object regions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.498, + 0.884, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ject spanning multiple regions or multiple objects being present in the same image region (object presence noise). However, we further push the limits of our model to assess how it performs when trained with noisy image regions instead of object regions. The results are reported in Table 6. We find that our model performs slightly worse than OVR-CNN (23.33 vs 23.45). We attribute this performance degradation to the inherent object presence noise in image regions as discussed earlier." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.665, + 0.642, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.69, + 0.884, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We proposed a curriculum learning framework to improve image-caption pretraining, using the number of concepts in captions. We also designed a novel curriculum aware loss to focus learning on the unaligned concept in each phase. Our approach outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining in various settings, including with/without pretrained encoders and small data. Further, we extensively analysed our model to study the contribution of each component." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.863, + 0.615, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although our proposed curriculum can be applied to any multimodal architecture, curriculum aware" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13382" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "loss requires modifications for use with dual encoder architectures that don't use cross-modal attention. Additionally, we use an off-the-shelf Part-of-Speech tagger to divide the data into different phases. As such, the correctness of this division is dependent on the quality of tagger. A poor tagger can negatively impact the curriculum design. Moreover, our approach doesn't apply to possible image-captions dataset which contain only short captions, containing possibly only one noun." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.26, + 0.281, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.287, + 0.49, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by the U.S. DARPA GAILA Program No.HR00111990058. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation here on." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.461, + 0.214, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.485, + 0.49, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dólár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.564, + 0.49, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.695, + 0.489, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ross Girshick. 2015a. Fast r-cnn. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.734, + 0.49, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ross Girshick. 2015b. Fast r-cnn. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1440-1448." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.787, + 0.49, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yunhsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.485, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalanditis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, Michael Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.173, + 0.885, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.273, + 0.885, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lianian Harold Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Haotian Zhang, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Yiwu Zhong, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Grounded language-image pre-training. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. arXiv." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.36, + 0.885, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision, pages 740-755. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.434, + 0.885, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tongtong Liu, Fangxiang Feng, and Xiaojie Wang. 2021. Multi-stage pre-training over simplified multimodal pre-training models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2556-2565, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.548, + 0.885, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.634, + 0.885, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A. F. Pereira, L. B. Smith, and C. Yu. 2014. A bottom-up view of toddler word learning. In *Psychonomic bulletin* & review." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.682, + 0.885, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.769, + 0.885, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bin Shan, Weichong Yin, Yu Sun, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2022. Ernie-vil 2.0: Multi-view contrastive learning for image-text pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.818, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linda B. Smith and Chen Yu. 2008. Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. In Cognition, volume 106, pages 1558-1568." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.878, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tejas Srinivasan, Xiang Ren, and Jesse Thomason. 2022. Curriculum learning for data-efficient vision-language alignment." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13383" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.49, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.263, + 0.49, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alireza Zareian, Kevin Dela Rosa, Derek Hao Hu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2021. Open-vocabulary object detection using captions. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13384" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.145, + 0.28, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After conclusion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.171, + 0.554, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.188, + 0.741, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work uses well-established datasets which have not been known to be risky." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.697, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.231, + 0.321, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract and Section 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.256, + 0.671, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.274, + 0.882, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We used ChatGPT to improve the sentence structures and correct grammatical mistakes in all sections of the paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.316, + 0.489, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.338, + 0.22, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 3.3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.363, + 0.53, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.381, + 0.223, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.407, + 0.779, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.424, + 0.767, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 1; the code for the model we used is released publicly along with the paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.45, + 0.882, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.515, + 0.802, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The code we used is in public domain. We plan to publicly release our original artifacts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.541, + 0.882, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.59, + 0.816, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The datasets we have used is public and have been extensively analysed by prior research." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.616, + 0.882, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.649, + 0.835, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method covers only such domain as the data used (which has been previously analysed)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.674, + 0.882, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.757, + 0.297, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 3.1 and 3.2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.781, + 0.494, + 0.799 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.804, + 0.206, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.83, + 0.882, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.863, + 0.773, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our model is a relatively small model which doesn't incur much computational cost." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.885, + 0.878, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13385" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.117, + 0.882, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We discuss this partly in Section 3. By and large, we use the same hyperparameters as used by the baseline." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.159, + 0.884, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.209, + 0.237, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 3.3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.234, + 0.884, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.284, + 0.251, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 2.2.1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.31, + 0.878, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.331, + 0.216, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.358, + 0.883, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.391, + 0.25, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.417, + 0.882, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.466, + 0.25, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.492, + 0.882, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.541, + 0.25, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.567, + 0.875, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.584, + 0.25, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.61, + 0.882, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.642, + 0.25, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13386" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99c7ac59d6b9cfac6c246d3987517c227e6fbf28 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/57e78277-b0f3-4ea8-adb1-c97f9f6a94b1_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:44765fbf7e1cb5fd9a365d8e7f44f923617bb9053b6ccc406450653033856bfa +size 1408301 diff --git a/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/full.md b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3306e08118aef2ab067081e2b028ed9ca954ce14 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,304 @@ +# Learning from Children: Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum + +Hammad A. Ayyubi1, Rahul Lokesh1, Alireza Zareian2, Bo Wu3, Shih-Fu Chang1 + +1 Columbia University 2 Snap Inc. 3 MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab + +{ha2578,rl3164}@columbia.edu + +# Abstract + +Image-caption pretraining has been quite successfully used for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot image classification and object detection. However, image-caption pretraining is still a hard problem – it requires multiple concepts (nouns) from captions to be aligned to several objects in images. To tackle this problem, we go to the roots – the best learner, children. We take inspiration from cognitive science studies dealing with children's language learning to propose a curriculum learning framework. The learning begins with easy-to-align image caption pairs containing one concept per caption. The difficulty is progressively increased with each new phase by adding one more concept per caption. Correspondingly, the knowledge acquired in each learning phase is utilized in subsequent phases to effectively constrain the learning problem to aligning one new concept-object pair in each phase. We show that this learning strategy improves over vanilla image-caption training in various settings – pretraining from scratch, using a pretrained image or/and pretrained text encoder, low data regime etc. Code available at: https://github.com/hayyubi/cur_v1.git. + +# 1 Introduction + +Recently, there has been a tremendous interest in employing image-caption pretraining for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot object classification (Radford et al., 2021) and zero-shot object detection (Zareian et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). The idea is to learn a common semantic space where the visual embeddings of objects in images lie close to the textual embeddings of the concepts (objects' name/tag label) in captions they refer to. This learned semantic space is later exploited for zero-shot object recognition by finding the concept embedding nearest to the objects' embeddings. + +Despite the recent success, image-caption pretraining is a complex problem as it entails aligning + +![](images/be6ef742e425611727ff6beaa2b095a723c96ac7ec711b73732c729469c715de.jpg) +Figure 1: Top: Normal image-caption pertaining. Bottom: Proposed Curriculum Learning Framework. The curriculum eases the learning problem by requiring the model to align only one concept-object pair at a time. + +multiple concepts in a caption with multiple objects in an image, as shown in fig. 1. Different methods have tried to solve this problem from various angles - CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) and ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) by using more data, ALBEF (Li et al., 2021) by using more complex network architecture, Florence (Yuan et al., 2021) and CoCa (Yu et al., 2022) by using more tasks and ERNIE-ViL 2.0 (Shan et al., 2022) by using more data augmentations (views). + +We propose an alternative approach based on a novel learning strategy that is architecture agnostic and does not require any additional data or compute. We take inspiration from cognitive science research studying how children learn language (concepts) in early stages by just observing their surroundings (images). Specifically, we refer to two studies showing that children learn rapidly if the object of interest is unambiguous (Pereira et al., 2014) and by applying co-referential statistics across multiple scenes (Smith and Yu, 2008). + +We implement these two ideas via a curriculum + +learning approach (demonstrated in fig. 1): + +1. We train the model in multiple phases of increasing difficulty with each phase containing one more concept in the caption than the previous one. Moreover, each phase contains only one new concept, the rest seen in prior phases. +2. In each phase, we leverage the concept-object association learned in prior phases to recognize the seen concepts and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept (section 2.2.2). + +These two strategies effectively reduce the problem of aligning multiple object-concept pairs per training sample to aligning only one such pair. + +To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has applied curriculum leaarning to image-caption pretraining in this way. Srinivasan et al. (2022) apply a curriculum based on the difficulty of negative samples in contrastive loss. Whereas, Liu et al. (2021) design the curriculum based on the granularity of text: from words to phrases to sentences. + +Although our proposed approach can be applied to any multimodal network architecture, we pick OVR-CNN (Zareian et al., 2021) due to its simplicity. We pretrain it with the proposed curriculum learning approach and evaluate on the downstream task of zero-shot object detection. We demonstrate that curriculum learning outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining on a variety of architectural settings – with and without a pretrained image encoder and/or a pretrained text encoder. We even show superior performance in low-data settings, suggesting our method can be leveraged in low-resource scenarios as well. + +# 2 Method + +We propose a curriculum learning framework to improve image caption pretraining. In this work, we apply it to OVR-CNN as its architecture is simpler and easier/faster to train/evaluate. We begin the description of our approach with a brief background on OVR-CNN. Next, we discuss how we modify it to implement the proposed curriculum learning framework. + +# 2.1 OVR-RCNN Background + +OVR-RCNN is a dual-encoder (separate visual encoder and text encoder) multimodal architecture. First, it pretrains the encoders using image-captions and later utilizes them for the downstream task of + +object detection. We only discuss the pretraining procedure as we only utilize this component. + +OVR-RCNN's visual encoder is ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016) and text encoder is either BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) or GloVE (Pennington et al., 2014). The visual encoder takes an image, $I$ with $w \times h$ dimensions, as input and outputs a feature map of $w / 32 \times h / 32$ regions. Each feature map is a vector which is transferred to language space using a projection layer. This gives the visual embeddings, $e_i^I$ , for each region $i$ . The tokenized caption, $C$ , is input to the text encoder which outputs an embedding $e_j^C$ for each token $j$ . + +The token-image region pair is aligned via weak supervision. Specifically, a global alignment score between image and caption, $\langle I,C\rangle_{G}$ is calculated using a locally weighted average alignment score of image regions and tokens as follows: + +$$ +\langle I, C \rangle_ {G} = \frac {1}{n _ {C}} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n _ {C}} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} a _ {i, j} \left\langle e _ {i} ^ {I}, e _ {j} ^ {C} \right\rangle_ {L} \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\langle .,.\rangle_{L}$ is the dot product of two vectors, $n_I$ and $n_C$ are the number of image and caption tokens respectively, and + +$$ +a _ {i, j} = \frac {\exp \left\langle e _ {i} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \right\rangle_ {L}}{\sum_ {i ^ {\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \exp \left\langle e _ {i ^ {\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \right\rangle_ {L}} \tag {2} +$$ + +The model is trained using contrastive learning by maximizing the global alignment score, $\langle I,C\rangle_{G}$ between positive image-caption pairs and minimizing it between negative pairs sampled from the same training batch. + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = - \log \frac {\exp \langle I , C \rangle_ {G}}{\sum_ {\{I ^ {\prime} , C ^ {\prime} \} \in \mathcal {N} _ {I , C}} \exp \langle I ^ {\prime} , C ^ {\prime} \rangle_ {G} + \exp \langle I , C \rangle_ {G}} \tag {3} +$$ + +where, $\mathcal{N}_{I,C} = \{I,C'|C' \in \mathcal{B}_C\} \cup \{I',C|I' \in \mathcal{B}_I\}$ and $\mathcal{B}_C, \mathcal{B}_I$ are batch captions and batch images respectively. This learning objective aligns paired image and caption together and also provides weak supervision for image-regions and caption-tokens association. + +# 2.2 Curriculum Learning Framework + +OVR-CNN facilitates object-concept alignment through coarse image-region and concept alignment. However, as an object can span multiple image regions or multiple objects can span an image region, this strategy can be noisy. To eliminate this noise and focus on the contribution of our curriculum framework to object-concept alignment, we train the model using object region features instead of image region features. To this end, object + +![](images/8cc466d9b02c696e4e2ddbe256661f1cfcef8e9294120ad202b4405eb622d788.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/a178945758a86328deee18166e57a8b3de82bd9e0d88f0453e6015d422e0fbcb.jpg) +(b) +Figure 2: Curriculum Statistics. (a) #Captions Vs Phase (b) The number next to bar shows % of captions per phase with at least #shaded concepts seen previously. (c) % Captions per phase introducing 1 new concept + +![](images/370ddae521d9e94a2dbf84a080dd6acee0ea5256eaf2a06a76ea572325489cd4.jpg) +(c) + +region bounding box is used to ROI pool (Girshick, 2015a) the image region features. The resulting feature vector $e_{o}^{I}$ , for each object $o$ , is used to replace $e_{i}^{I}$ in eqs. (1) and (2). + +# 2.2.1 Curriculum Design + +The learning is divided into $1,2,3\ldots k$ phases. Each phase $p$ is trained with only those image-caption pairs having $p$ concepts per caption. To divide the data into phases, we use $\mathrm{spacy}^1$ to PoS (Part of Speech) tag the captions. Depending upon the number of nouns in each caption, the caption and its paired image is grouped into the corresponding phase. This strategy of designing the curriculum also imparts the data an additional property empirically – at most only one new concept is introduced per caption in each phase (as demonstrated in fig. 2b). + +# 2.2.2 Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss + +To recognize the concepts in captions previously seen in prior phases and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept, we formulate a novel Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss $(\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}})$ . Specifically, we first calculate the previously learned object-concept alignment, $a_{o,j}$ from modified eq. (2), using either the trained model from the last iteration $(\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{CR}})$ or the trained model from the last phase $(\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{CP}})$ . Next, $a_{o,j}$ is used to compute: + +$$ +a _ {o, j} ^ {\prime} = \frac {\exp \langle e _ {o} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \rangle_ {L} \exp \left(- \max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \frac {t}{T}\right)}{\sum_ {o ^ {\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \exp \langle e _ {o ^ {\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \rangle_ {L} \exp \left(- \max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \frac {t}{T}\right)} +$$ + +where, $t$ is the current iteration number and $T$ is the total number of iterations in training. + +For a concept $j$ , which is already closely aligned to an object $o$ , $\max_{o}(a_{o,j})$ is high. This leads to a low value of $a_{o,j}'$ , resulting in less attention being paid to concept $j$ in the current training iteration/phase. Vice versa for a concept that is not + +well aligned with any object. $a_{o,j}^{\prime}$ effectively redistributes the attention of learning to focus more on concepts that are not well aligned with any object. The term $t / T$ has a low value in the beginning of training and gradually scales to 1 by the end. This allows the network to ignore prior knowledge in the beginning while utilizing it in the latter stages. + +We use $a_{o,j}^{\prime}$ to replace $a_{o,j}$ in modified eq. (1), and then use eq. (3) to compute $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ + +# 3 Experiments + +# 3.1 Pretraining Dataset and Implementation Details + +We use the COCO Captions dataset (Chen et al., 2015) for pretraining. It contains 118,287 images and $5\mathrm{x}$ captions. To obtain bounding box regions for objects in images, we use COCO Objects (Lin et al., 2014) dataset as it uses the same set of images as COCO Captions. We divide the data into $k = 4$ phases using the strategy discussed in section 2.2.1. Figure 2a shows number of captions assigned to each phase. As shown in fig. 2b, the majority of captions in each phase have at least k-1 concepts previously seen, allowing the curriculum to introduce at most one new concept per training sample. Further, as more concepts are introduced with each passing phase, the percent of captions per phase actually introducing a new concept decreases (as depicted in fig. 2c). By phase 4, this percent reduces to $< 5\%$ . Additional phases of training may not contain enough captions actually introducing a new concept in the curriculum way, making these phases similar to regular image-caption training. Hence, we limit to 4 phases. + +We train the model using SGD optimizer, with a batch size of 32 for 4 epochs in each phase, a learning rate of 0.005, a step scheduler, and the loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{CP}}$ . + +
ModelPretrained Visual BBLanguage BackboneAccuracy
OVR-CNN0XGloVE20.62±0.86
OursXGloVE21.64±1.02
OVR-CNN0XBERT22.73±0.06
OursXBERT23.74±0.48
OVR-CNN0✓BERT34.46±0.11
Ours✓BERT35.49±0.21
+ +Table 1: Curriculum learning vs. baseline in various settings with/without pretrained encoders. BB: backbone + +
ModelP1 Obj.P2 Obj.
OVR-CNN049.3616.61
Ours50.926.1
+ +Table 2: Phase wise top-5 accuracy. $P_{i}$ Obj.: Phase i Objects. + +
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN013.10
Ours17.45
+ +Table 3: Object bounding boxes from RPN. + +# 3.2 Downstream Task, Dataset and Transfer + +We evaluate the performance of the model on zero-shot object detection task on COCO Objects, val split (4836 images; 33374 instances of 65 object class). The task involves object bounding box predictions besides classifying these object regions to a label (concept). However, our method is aimed only at improving the alignment of object regions to a concept. As such, we eliminate any performance noise from bounding box predictions by only evaluating the classification accuracy of object regions given ground truth object bounding boxes. + +Transfer to Downstream Task: We extract object features from image and object bounding box using visual backbone and use it to find the closest class label vector (obtained via language backbone). + +# 3.3 Baseline and Evaluation + +Our baseline is OVR-CNN, a regular image-caption pretrained model. However, since our method uses object region features instead of image patch features for multimodal alignment (section 2.2), we also pretrain OVR-CNN with object regions to obtain OVR- $\mathrm{CNN}_O$ . It is transferred to downstream task similar to our proposed model (section 3.2). + +Our proposed curriculum framework outperforms the baseline in various settings, as shown in table 1. The accuracy numbers reported are averaged across three seeds. This demonstrates that our proposed learning strategy works across encoders trained from scratch or pretrained ones. + +Performance Gain Analysis. We analyze model performance on object classes introduced during pretraining in phase 1 and phase 2 separately. + +![](images/8caad75947f158e323a72ad04c9c73845aa8a5e9103d0d5940f98beec08732d7.jpg) +Figure 3: Performance comparison in low data setting. + +
ModelCur.LossAccuracy
OVR-CNN0L19.73
OVR-CNN0LCR20.65
Ours✓L21.02
Ours✓LCR21.58
Ours✓LCP22.57
+ +Table 4: Ablation of proposed loss. + +As reported in table 2, the improvement in phase 2 objects is $\sim 10x$ . This illustrates that our curriculum strategy improves alignment of multiple concepts in a caption by focusing on one at a time. + +Low Data Setting. Our model outperforms the baseline even if both uses $50\%$ , $25\%$ or $10\%$ data (fig. 3), indicating its utility when data is scarce. + +Region proposals instead of ground-truth object regions. We use a RPN model (Girshick, 2015b) trained class-agnostically on Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2016) to generate object regions. The superior performance of our model against baseline, reported in table 3, demonstrates that our approach is effective even when ground-truth object regions are not available. + +Loss Ablation. From table 4, we can conclude that our curriculum design works (Ours $+\mathcal{L}>$ OVR $\mathrm{CNN}_O + \mathcal{L}$ ); our proposed curriculum aware loss works (Ours $+\mathcal{L}<$ Ours $+\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{CR}}$ ) irrespective of curriculum (OVR- $\mathrm{CNN}_O + \mathcal{L}<$ OVR- $\mathrm{CNN}_O + \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{CR}}$ ); curriculum aware loss works better when previous knowledge is taken from the last phase instead of the last iteration (Ours $+\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{CP}}>$ Ours $+\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{CR}}$ ). + +Qualitative Analysis. We provide qualitative analysis as well to shed more insights into the cases where our approach works/doesn't work. From Figure 4, we find that our model performs better than OVR-CNN $_O$ in certain cases, especially when the objects are from Phase 2 - "snowboard", "cup", "skis" etc. This provides further evidence towards our claim that our approach improves the alignment of Phase 2 objects. + +Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection As mentioned before, we have focused our experiments on evaluating object + +![](images/33706757b5a1030c0fbcf2b1a9902d44a8e0a9b5ce5077b38daaf84566979fb7.jpg) +Figure 4: Qualitative analysis of cases where our approach works/doesn't work. The top two rows show samples where our model is successfully able to align the objects with the correct concept while OVR-CNN $_O$ makes mistakes. Interestingly, most of these objects are from Phase 2 - "snowboard", "cup", "skis" etc. The bottom row shows cases where our model makes mistakes. Note: only relevant, not all, objects are shown from each image. + +
ModelBaseTargetGeneralized
BaseTargetAll
OVR-CNN46.827.546.022.839.9
Ours48.8926.6548.1821.9941.33
+ +concept alignment rather than on traditional object detection mAP metric. This was done to avoid unnecessary performance noise arising from training a RPN, which is required for mAP evaluation. However, to test the limits of our model, we evaluate on this noisy mAP metric as well. We keep all the settings similar as Zareian et al. (2021), except we pretrain using our curriculum learning approach. The results are reported in Table 5. We find that our model performs better in the most generic Generalized ('All') set (41.33 vs 39.9), signifying the effectiveness of our approach even in this noisy setting. We further observe that we perform better in the base classes while lagging behind in the target classes. A deeper analysis shows that most of the Phase 2 objects, on which we make major improvements, lie in the base classes. This explains the improved performance on base classes and slight depreciation in target classes performance. + +Training with image grid regions. Our curriculum based pretraining method was aimed at improving object-concept alignment by focussing on one object at time. To facilitate this, we pretrained directly with object regions. Image regions were not used to eliminate noise arising from an ob + +Table 5: Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection. + +
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN23.45
Ours23.33
+ +Table 6: Training with image grid regions instead of object regions. + +ject spanning multiple regions or multiple objects being present in the same image region (object presence noise). However, we further push the limits of our model to assess how it performs when trained with noisy image regions instead of object regions. The results are reported in Table 6. We find that our model performs slightly worse than OVR-CNN (23.33 vs 23.45). We attribute this performance degradation to the inherent object presence noise in image regions as discussed earlier. + +# 4 Conclusion + +We proposed a curriculum learning framework to improve image-caption pretraining, using the number of concepts in captions. We also designed a novel curriculum aware loss to focus learning on the unaligned concept in each phase. Our approach outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining in various settings, including with/without pretrained encoders and small data. Further, we extensively analysed our model to study the contribution of each component. + +# Limitations + +Although our proposed curriculum can be applied to any multimodal architecture, curriculum aware + +loss requires modifications for use with dual encoder architectures that don't use cross-modal attention. Additionally, we use an off-the-shelf Part-of-Speech tagger to divide the data into different phases. As such, the correctness of this division is dependent on the quality of tagger. A poor tagger can negatively impact the curriculum design. Moreover, our approach doesn't apply to possible image-captions dataset which contain only short captions, containing possibly only one noun. + +# Acknowledgement + +This work was supported by the U.S. DARPA GAILA Program No.HR00111990058. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation here on. + +# References + +Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dólár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ross Girshick. 2015a. Fast r-cnn. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). +Ross Girshick. 2015b. Fast r-cnn. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1440-1448. +Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778. +Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yunhsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. + +Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalanditis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, Michael Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. +Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705. Curran Associates, Inc. +Lianian Harold Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Haotian Zhang, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Yiwu Zhong, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Grounded language-image pre-training. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. arXiv. +Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision, pages 740-755. Springer. +Tongtong Liu, Fangxiang Feng, and Xiaojie Wang. 2021. Multi-stage pre-training over simplified multimodal pre-training models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2556-2565, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. +A. F. Pereira, L. B. Smith, and C. Yu. 2014. A bottom-up view of toddler word learning. In *Psychonomic bulletin* & review. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. +Bin Shan, Weichong Yin, Yu Sun, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2022. Ernie-vil 2.0: Multi-view contrastive learning for image-text pre-training. +Linda B. Smith and Chen Yu. 2008. Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. In Cognition, volume 106, pages 1558-1568. +Tejas Srinivasan, Xiang Ren, and Jesse Thomason. 2022. Curriculum learning for data-efficient vision-language alignment. + +Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. +Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision. +Alireza Zareian, Kevin Dela Rosa, Derek Hao Hu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2021. Open-vocabulary object detection using captions. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +After conclusion. + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Our work uses well-established datasets which have not been known to be risky. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Abstract and Section 1 + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +We used ChatGPT to improve the sentence structures and correct grammatical mistakes in all sections of the paper. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Section 3.3 + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +Section 1 + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +Section 1; the code for the model we used is released publicly along with the paper. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +The code we used is in public domain. We plan to publicly release our original artifacts. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +The datasets we have used is public and have been extensively analysed by prior research. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Our method covers only such domain as the data used (which has been previously analysed). + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Section 3.1 and 3.2 + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Section 3 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Our model is a relatively small model which doesn't incur much computational cost. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +We discuss this partly in Section 3. By and large, we use the same hyperparameters as used by the baseline. + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +Section 3.3 + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +Section 2.2.1 + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/images.zip b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65aa16f8753fd61b2ad69c14a2cce1b12e99d0a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e8d0ac1a87dce94f6fc6b405a5df521919e6a4f1b98a651ca2f1700746c42bae +size 291201 diff --git a/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/layout.json b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df4d609e7c1245934f9b75e374ff45d835b4fbaa --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from Children_ Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7260 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 76, + 466, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 76, + 466, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 76, + 466, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning from Children: Improving Image-Caption Pretraining via Curriculum" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 130, + 505, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 130, + 505, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 130, + 505, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hammad A. Ayyubi1, Rahul Lokesh1, Alireza Zareian2, Bo Wu3, Shih-Fu Chang1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 146, + 419, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 146, + 419, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 146, + 419, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Columbia University 2 Snap Inc. 3 MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 160, + 364, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 160, + 364, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 160, + 364, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ha2578,rl3164}@columbia.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Image-caption pretraining has been quite successfully used for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot image classification and object detection. However, image-caption pretraining is still a hard problem – it requires multiple concepts (nouns) from captions to be aligned to several objects in images. To tackle this problem, we go to the roots – the best learner, children. We take inspiration from cognitive science studies dealing with children's language learning to propose a curriculum learning framework. The learning begins with easy-to-align image caption pairs containing one concept per caption. The difficulty is progressively increased with each new phase by adding one more concept per caption. Correspondingly, the knowledge acquired in each learning phase is utilized in subsequent phases to effectively constrain the learning problem to aligning one new concept-object pair in each phase. We show that this learning strategy improves over vanilla image-caption training in various settings – pretraining from scratch, using a pretrained image or/and pretrained text encoder, low data regime etc. Code available at: https://github.com/hayyubi/cur_v1.git." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, there has been a tremendous interest in employing image-caption pretraining for downstream vision tasks like zero-shot object classification (Radford et al., 2021) and zero-shot object detection (Zareian et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). The idea is to learn a common semantic space where the visual embeddings of objects in images lie close to the textual embeddings of the concepts (objects' name/tag label) in captions they refer to. This learned semantic space is later exploited for zero-shot object recognition by finding the concept embedding nearest to the objects' embeddings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the recent success, image-caption pretraining is a complex problem as it entails aligning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 526, + 405 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 526, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 526, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "be6ef742e425611727ff6beaa2b095a723c96ac7ec711b73732c729469c715de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 458 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Top: Normal image-caption pertaining. Bottom: Proposed Curriculum Learning Framework. The curriculum eases the learning problem by requiring the model to align only one concept-object pair at a time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "multiple concepts in a caption with multiple objects in an image, as shown in fig. 1. Different methods have tried to solve this problem from various angles - CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) and ALIGN (Jia et al., 2021) by using more data, ALBEF (Li et al., 2021) by using more complex network architecture, Florence (Yuan et al., 2021) and CoCa (Yu et al., 2022) by using more tasks and ERNIE-ViL 2.0 (Shan et al., 2022) by using more data augmentations (views)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 525, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 525, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 525, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose an alternative approach based on a novel learning strategy that is architecture agnostic and does not require any additional data or compute. We take inspiration from cognitive science research studying how children learn language (concepts) in early stages by just observing their surroundings (images). Specifically, we refer to two studies showing that children learn rapidly if the object of interest is unambiguous (Pereira et al., 2014) and by applying co-referential statistics across multiple scenes (Smith and Yu, 2008)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implement these two ideas via a curriculum" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13378" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13378-13386" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 417, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "learning approach (demonstrated in fig. 1):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 95, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 95, + 291, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 95, + 291, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 95, + 291, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We train the model in multiple phases of increasing difficulty with each phase containing one more concept in the caption than the previous one. Moreover, each phase contains only one new concept, the rest seen in prior phases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 173, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 173, + 291, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 173, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. In each phase, we leverage the concept-object association learned in prior phases to recognize the seen concepts and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept (section 2.2.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These two strategies effectively reduce the problem of aligning multiple object-concept pairs per training sample to aligning only one such pair." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has applied curriculum leaarning to image-caption pretraining in this way. Srinivasan et al. (2022) apply a curriculum based on the difficulty of negative samples in contrastive loss. Whereas, Liu et al. (2021) design the curriculum based on the granularity of text: from words to phrases to sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although our proposed approach can be applied to any multimodal network architecture, we pick OVR-CNN (Zareian et al., 2021) due to its simplicity. We pretrain it with the proposed curriculum learning approach and evaluate on the downstream task of zero-shot object detection. We demonstrate that curriculum learning outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining on a variety of architectural settings – with and without a pretrained image encoder and/or a pretrained text encoder. We even show superior performance in low-data settings, suggesting our method can be leveraged in low-resource scenarios as well." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 130, + 573 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 130, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 130, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose a curriculum learning framework to improve image caption pretraining. In this work, we apply it to OVR-CNN as its architecture is simpler and easier/faster to train/evaluate. We begin the description of our approach with a brief background on OVR-CNN. Next, we discuss how we modify it to implement the proposed curriculum learning framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 215, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 215, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 215, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 OVR-RCNN Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OVR-RCNN is a dual-encoder (separate visual encoder and text encoder) multimodal architecture. First, it pretrains the encoders using image-captions and later utilizes them for the downstream task of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "object detection. We only discuss the pretraining procedure as we only utilize this component." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OVR-RCNN's visual encoder is ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016) and text encoder is either BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) or GloVE (Pennington et al., 2014). The visual encoder takes an image, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w \\times h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dimensions, as input and outputs a feature map of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w / 32 \\times h / 32" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regions. Each feature map is a vector which is transferred to language space using a projection layer. This gives the visual embeddings, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i^I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for each region " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The tokenized caption, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", is input to the text encoder which outputs an embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_j^C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The token-image region pair is aligned via weak supervision. Specifically, a global alignment score between image and caption, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle I,C\\rangle_{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated using a locally weighted average alignment score of image regions and tokens as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 324, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 324, + 525, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 324, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\langle I, C \\rangle_ {G} = \\frac {1}{n _ {C}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n _ {C}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} a _ {i, j} \\left\\langle e _ {i} ^ {I}, e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "dc9519f3c001ecd8c4ac475531e6dd4683c4c75233cc1cf4cc3fc6623e846a3e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle .,.\\rangle_{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the dot product of two vectors, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the number of image and caption tokens respectively, and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 406, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 406, + 525, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 406, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "a _ {i, j} = \\frac {\\exp \\left\\langle e _ {i} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L}}{\\sum_ {i ^ {\\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \\exp \\left\\langle e _ {i ^ {\\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\right\\rangle_ {L}} \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "53160199250a08198c65044b60db129da1fb33f6db8411f25bcf399601ac9aa8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The model is trained using contrastive learning by maximizing the global alignment score, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle I,C\\rangle_{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between positive image-caption pairs and minimizing it between negative pairs sampled from the same training batch." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 513, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 513, + 525, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 513, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = - \\log \\frac {\\exp \\langle I , C \\rangle_ {G}}{\\sum_ {\\{I ^ {\\prime} , C ^ {\\prime} \\} \\in \\mathcal {N} _ {I , C}} \\exp \\langle I ^ {\\prime} , C ^ {\\prime} \\rangle_ {G} + \\exp \\langle I , C \\rangle_ {G}} \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "a148f8d7ed734a78c1a241825676de4d026819a2150f3b39e984a635998df493.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{N}_{I,C} = \\{I,C'|C' \\in \\mathcal{B}_C\\} \\cup \\{I',C|I' \\in \\mathcal{B}_I\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_C, \\mathcal{B}_I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are batch captions and batch images respectively. This learning objective aligns paired image and caption together and also provides weak supervision for image-regions and caption-tokens association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 490, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 490, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 490, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Curriculum Learning Framework" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OVR-CNN facilitates object-concept alignment through coarse image-region and concept alignment. However, as an object can span multiple image regions or multiple objects can span an image region, this strategy can be noisy. To eliminate this noise and focus on the contribution of our curriculum framework to object-concept alignment, we train the model using object region features instead of image region features. To this end, object" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13379" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 214, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 214, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 214, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 214, + 179 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8cc466d9b02c696e4e2ddbe256661f1cfcef8e9294120ad202b4405eb622d788.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 182, + 148, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 182, + 148, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 182, + 148, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 73, + 369, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 73, + 369, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 73, + 369, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 73, + 369, + 181 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a178945758a86328deee18166e57a8b3de82bd9e0d88f0453e6015d422e0fbcb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 182, + 300, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 182, + 300, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 182, + 300, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 524, + 219 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 524, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 524, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Curriculum Statistics. (a) #Captions Vs Phase (b) The number next to bar shows % of captions per phase with at least #shaded concepts seen previously. (c) % Captions per phase introducing 1 new concept" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 374, + 73, + 524, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 73, + 524, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 73, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 73, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "370ddae521d9e94a2dbf84a080dd6acee0ea5256eaf2a06a76ea572325489cd4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 443, + 182, + 454, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 443, + 182, + 454, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 443, + 182, + 454, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "region bounding box is used to ROI pool (Girshick, 2015a) the image region features. The resulting feature vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{o}^{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for each object " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", is used to replace " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{i}^{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in eqs. (1) and (2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 194, + 306 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 194, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 194, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2.1 Curriculum Design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The learning is divided into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1,2,3\\ldots k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " phases. Each phase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is trained with only those image-caption pairs having " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " concepts per caption. To divide the data into phases, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{spacy}^1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to PoS (Part of Speech) tag the captions. Depending upon the number of nouns in each caption, the caption and its paired image is grouped into the corresponding phase. This strategy of designing the curriculum also imparts the data an additional property empirically – at most only one new concept is introduced per caption in each phase (as demonstrated in fig. 2b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 268, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 268, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 268, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2.2 Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To recognize the concepts in captions previously seen in prior phases and focus on aligning the new/unseen concept, we formulate a novel Curriculum Aware Alignment Loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{C}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Specifically, we first calculate the previously learned object-concept alignment, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{o,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from modified eq. (2), using either the trained model from the last iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or the trained model from the last phase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Next, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{o,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 290, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used to compute:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 289, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "a _ {o, j} ^ {\\prime} = \\frac {\\exp \\langle e _ {o} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\rangle_ {L} \\exp \\left(- \\max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \\frac {t}{T}\\right)}{\\sum_ {o ^ {\\prime} = 1} ^ {n _ {I}} \\exp \\langle e _ {o ^ {\\prime}} ^ {I} , e _ {j} ^ {C} \\rangle_ {L} \\exp \\left(- \\max _ {o} (a _ {o , j}) . \\frac {t}{T}\\right)}", + "image_path": "7f8260c1f77fd5715146eedf65dbd48786494aa5e746969de66c37ac2f1f5b29.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 289, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the current iteration number and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the total number of iterations in training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For a concept " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is already closely aligned to an object " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\max_{o}(a_{o,j})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is high. This leads to a low value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{o,j}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", resulting in less attention being paid to concept " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the current training iteration/phase. Vice versa for a concept that is not" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "well aligned with any object. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{o,j}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " effectively redistributes the attention of learning to focus more on concepts that are not well aligned with any object. The term " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t / T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has a low value in the beginning of training and gradually scales to 1 by the end. This allows the network to ignore prior knowledge in the beginning while utilizing it in the latter stages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{o,j}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to replace " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{o,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in modified eq. (1), and then use eq. (3) to compute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{C}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 390, + 386 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 390, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 390, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 520, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 520, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 520, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Pretraining Dataset and Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the COCO Captions dataset (Chen et al., 2015) for pretraining. It contains 118,287 images and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\mathrm{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " captions. To obtain bounding box regions for objects in images, we use COCO Objects (Lin et al., 2014) dataset as it uses the same set of images as COCO Captions. We divide the data into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " phases using the strategy discussed in section 2.2.1. Figure 2a shows number of captions assigned to each phase. As shown in fig. 2b, the majority of captions in each phase have at least k-1 concepts previously seen, allowing the curriculum to introduce at most one new concept per training sample. Further, as more concepts are introduced with each passing phase, the percent of captions per phase actually introducing a new concept decreases (as depicted in fig. 2c). By phase 4, this percent reduces to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Additional phases of training may not contain enough captions actually introducing a new concept in the curriculum way, making these phases similar to regular image-caption training. Hence, we limit to 4 phases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train the model using SGD optimizer, with a batch size of 32 for 4 epochs in each phase, a learning rate of 0.005, a step scheduler, and the loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1https://spacy.io/usage" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13380" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 284, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 284, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 284, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 284, + 181 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelPretrained Visual BBLanguage BackboneAccuracy
OVR-CNN0XGloVE20.62±0.86
OursXGloVE21.64±1.02
OVR-CNN0XBERT22.73±0.06
OursXBERT23.74±0.48
OVR-CNN0✓BERT34.46±0.11
Ours✓BERT35.49±0.21
", + "image_path": "99128db23a7b7409106d923b225f402c06a5dac58043fffec90f72c03a0f155f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 214, + 183, + 262 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 207 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Curriculum learning vs. baseline in various settings with/without pretrained encoders. BB: backbone" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 214, + 183, + 262 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 214, + 183, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 214, + 183, + 262 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelP1 Obj.P2 Obj.
OVR-CNN049.3616.61
Ours50.926.1
", + "image_path": "62d372ffc4b5033d912472d7dae20f478c527d8f7c80c16be81a3cd3cd2bc12a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 193, + 288 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 193, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 193, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Phase wise top-5 accuracy. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 193, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 193, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Obj.: Phase i Objects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 205, + 215, + 282, + 262 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 215, + 282, + 262 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 215, + 282, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 215, + 282, + 262 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN013.10
Ours17.45
", + "image_path": "926ece2e1cfcdd1e7fe2484c546764cd981a39bb2f924946fb586fd8f2ccb6ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 264, + 290, + 288 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 264, + 290, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 264, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Object bounding boxes from RPN." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 284, + 314 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 284, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 284, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Downstream Task, Dataset and Transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the performance of the model on zero-shot object detection task on COCO Objects, val split (4836 images; 33374 instances of 65 object class). The task involves object bounding box predictions besides classifying these object regions to a label (concept). However, our method is aimed only at improving the alignment of object regions to a concept. As such, we eliminate any performance noise from bounding box predictions by only evaluating the classification accuracy of object regions given ground truth object bounding boxes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transfer to Downstream Task: We extract object features from image and object bounding box using visual backbone and use it to find the closest class label vector (obtained via language backbone)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 208, + 548 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 208, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 208, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Baseline and Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our baseline is OVR-CNN, a regular image-caption pretrained model. However, since our method uses object region features instead of image patch features for multimodal alignment (section 2.2), we also pretrain OVR-CNN with object regions to obtain OVR- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CNN}_O" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It is transferred to downstream task similar to our proposed model (section 3.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our proposed curriculum framework outperforms the baseline in various settings, as shown in table 1. The accuracy numbers reported are averaged across three seeds. This demonstrates that our proposed learning strategy works across encoders trained from scratch or pretrained ones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance Gain Analysis. We analyze model performance on object classes introduced during pretraining in phase 1 and phase 2 separately." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 158 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 158 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8caad75947f158e323a72ad04c9c73845aa8a5e9103d0d5940f98beec08732d7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 160, + 523, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 160, + 523, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 160, + 523, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Performance comparison in low data setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 179, + 496, + 264 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 179, + 496, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 179, + 496, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 179, + 496, + 264 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelCur.LossAccuracy
OVR-CNN0L19.73
OVR-CNN0LCR20.65
Ours✓L21.02
Ours✓LCR21.58
Ours✓LCP22.57
", + "image_path": "13a6bfc024676781e3530402a12e75cbaf6f2be6b5f57d00f3991c2706c27a93.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 266, + 485, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 266, + 485, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 266, + 485, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Ablation of proposed loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 524, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As reported in table 2, the improvement in phase 2 objects is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim 10x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This illustrates that our curriculum strategy improves alignment of multiple concepts in a caption by focusing on one at a time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Low Data Setting. Our model outperforms the baseline even if both uses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 524, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " data (fig. 3), indicating its utility when data is scarce." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Region proposals instead of ground-truth object regions. We use a RPN model (Girshick, 2015b) trained class-agnostically on Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2016) to generate object regions. The superior performance of our model against baseline, reported in table 3, demonstrates that our approach is effective even when ground-truth object regions are not available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Loss Ablation. From table 4, we can conclude that our curriculum design works (Ours " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathcal{L}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " OVR" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "); our proposed curriculum aware loss works (Ours " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathcal{L}<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Ours " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") irrespective of curriculum (OVR-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " OVR-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CNN}_O + \\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "); curriculum aware loss works better when previous knowledge is taken from the last phase instead of the last iteration (Ours " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CP}}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Ours " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{CR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitative Analysis. We provide qualitative analysis as well to shed more insights into the cases where our approach works/doesn't work. From Figure 4, we find that our model performs better than OVR-CNN" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_O" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in certain cases, especially when the objects are from Phase 2 - \"snowboard\", \"cup\", \"skis\" etc. This provides further evidence towards our claim that our approach improves the alignment of Phase 2 objects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection As mentioned before, we have focused our experiments on evaluating object" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13381" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 266 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 266 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 266 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "33706757b5a1030c0fbcf2b1a9902d44a8e0a9b5ce5077b38daaf84566979fb7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 525, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 525, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 525, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Qualitative analysis of cases where our approach works/doesn't work. The top two rows show samples where our model is successfully able to align the objects with the correct concept while OVR-CNN" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 525, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_O" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 525, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " makes mistakes. Interestingly, most of these objects are from Phase 2 - \"snowboard\", \"cup\", \"skis\" etc. The bottom row shows cases where our model makes mistakes. Note: only relevant, not all, objects are shown from each image." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 389 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 389 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 389 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelBaseTargetGeneralized
BaseTargetAll
OVR-CNN46.827.546.022.839.9
Ours48.8926.6548.1821.9941.33
", + "image_path": "dbe3b298e47d3509d6b435c9d6fe288a8f4850ae05f4f087c8c7e9d859175a86.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "concept alignment rather than on traditional object detection mAP metric. This was done to avoid unnecessary performance noise arising from training a RPN, which is required for mAP evaluation. However, to test the limits of our model, we evaluate on this noisy mAP metric as well. We keep all the settings similar as Zareian et al. (2021), except we pretrain using our curriculum learning approach. The results are reported in Table 5. We find that our model performs better in the most generic Generalized ('All') set (41.33 vs 39.9), signifying the effectiveness of our approach even in this noisy setting. We further observe that we perform better in the base classes while lagging behind in the target classes. A deeper analysis shows that most of the Phase 2 objects, on which we make major improvements, lie in the base classes. This explains the improved performance on base classes and slight depreciation in target classes performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training with image grid regions. Our curriculum based pretraining method was aimed at improving object-concept alignment by focussing on one object at time. To facilitate this, we pretrained directly with object regions. Image regions were not used to eliminate noise arising from an ob" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 364, + 331, + 465, + 378 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 416 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 289, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Comparison of traditional mAP metric for object detection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 331, + 465, + 378 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 331, + 465, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 331, + 465, + 378 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAccuracy
OVR-CNN23.45
Ours23.33
", + "image_path": "4e832216c30ac2bfb9588067cce6c69fdcd572fa2e055580cee2498ae19d945f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 406 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Training with image grid regions instead of object regions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ject spanning multiple regions or multiple objects being present in the same image region (object presence noise). However, we further push the limits of our model to assess how it performs when trained with noisy image regions instead of object regions. The results are reported in Table 6. We find that our model performs slightly worse than OVR-CNN (23.33 vs 23.45). We attribute this performance degradation to the inherent object presence noise in image regions as discussed earlier." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 381, + 571 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 381, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 559, + 381, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 525, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 525, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 525, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We proposed a curriculum learning framework to improve image-caption pretraining, using the number of concepts in captions. We also designed a novel curriculum aware loss to focus learning on the unaligned concept in each phase. Our approach outperforms vanilla image-caption pretraining in various settings, including with/without pretrained encoders and small data. Further, we extensively analysed our model to study the contribution of each component." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 725, + 365, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 725, + 365, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 725, + 365, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although our proposed curriculum can be applied to any multimodal architecture, curriculum aware" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13382" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "loss requires modifications for use with dual encoder architectures that don't use cross-modal attention. Additionally, we use an off-the-shelf Part-of-Speech tagger to divide the data into different phases. As such, the correctness of this division is dependent on the quality of tagger. A poor tagger can negatively impact the curriculum design. Moreover, our approach doesn't apply to possible image-captions dataset which contain only short captions, containing possibly only one noun." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 218, + 167, + 232 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 218, + 167, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 218, + 167, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 291, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by the U.S. DARPA GAILA Program No.HR00111990058. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation here on." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 387, + 127, + 400 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 387, + 127, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 387, + 127, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 464 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dólár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 290, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ross Girshick. 2015a. Fast r-cnn. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ross Girshick. 2015b. Fast r-cnn. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1440-1448." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yunhsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalanditis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, Michael Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 526, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 526, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 526, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 526, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lianian Harold Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Haotian Zhang, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Yiwu Zhong, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Grounded language-image pre-training. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. arXiv." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 526, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision, pages 740-755. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 526, + 454 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 526, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 526, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tongtong Liu, Fangxiang Feng, and Xiaojie Wang. 2021. Multi-stage pre-training over simplified multimodal pre-training models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2556-2565, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 526, + 527 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 526, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 526, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 526, + 566 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 526, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 526, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A. F. Pereira, L. B. Smith, and C. Yu. 2014. A bottom-up view of toddler word learning. In *Psychonomic bulletin* & review." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 526, + 640 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 526, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 526, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 646, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 646, + 526, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 646, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bin Shan, Weichong Yin, Yu Sun, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2022. Ernie-vil 2.0: Multi-view contrastive learning for image-text pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 687, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 687, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 687, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linda B. Smith and Chen Yu. 2008. Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. In Cognition, volume 106, pages 1558-1568." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tejas Srinivasan, Xiang Ren, and Jesse Thomason. 2022. Curriculum learning for data-efficient vision-language alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13383" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 291, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alireza Zareian, Kevin Dela Rosa, Derek Hao Hu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2021. Open-vocabulary object detection using captions. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13384" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 166, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 166, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 166, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After conclusion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 440, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 440, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 440, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work uses well-established datasets which have not been known to be risky." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 190, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 190, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 190, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract and Section 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 399, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 399, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 399, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 524, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We used ChatGPT to improve the sentence structures and correct grammatical mistakes in all sections of the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 265, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 265, + 290, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 265, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 284, + 130, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 284, + 130, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 284, + 130, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 3.3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 320, + 132, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 320, + 132, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 320, + 132, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 342, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 342, + 463, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 342, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 456, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 456, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 456, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 1; the code for the model we used is released publicly along with the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 378, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 378, + 524, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 378, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 433, + 477, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 433, + 477, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 433, + 477, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The code we used is in public domain. We plan to publicly release our original artifacts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 454, + 524, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 454, + 524, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 454, + 524, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 496, + 485, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 496, + 485, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 496, + 485, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The datasets we have used is public and have been extensively analysed by prior research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 518, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 518, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 518, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 545, + 496, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 545, + 496, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 545, + 496, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method covers only such domain as the data used (which has been previously analysed)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 566, + 524, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 566, + 524, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 566, + 524, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 636, + 176, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 636, + 176, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 636, + 176, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 3.1 and 3.2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 293, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 293, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 293, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 676, + 122, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 676, + 122, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 676, + 122, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 698, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 698, + 524, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 698, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 725, + 459, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 725, + 459, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 725, + 459, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our model is a relatively small model which doesn't incur much computational cost." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 522, + 764 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13385" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 98, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 98, + 524, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 98, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We discuss this partly in Section 3. By and large, we use the same hyperparameters as used by the baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 133, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 133, + 525, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 133, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 175, + 141, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 175, + 141, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 175, + 141, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 3.3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 525, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 238, + 149, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 238, + 149, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 238, + 149, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 2.2.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 522, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 522, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 522, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 128, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 128, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 128, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 328, + 148, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 328, + 148, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 328, + 148, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 350, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 350, + 524, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 350, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 391, + 148, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 391, + 148, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 391, + 148, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 524, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 524, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 454, + 148, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 454, + 148, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 454, + 148, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 520, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 520, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 520, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 491, + 148, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 491, + 148, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 491, + 148, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 513, + 524, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 513, + 524, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 513, + 524, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 539, + 148, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 539, + 148, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 539, + 148, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13386" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_content_list.json b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05442790af6a3c9e45d39d3d991a51451e3545aa --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2102 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning from a Friend: Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 131, + 87, + 867, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhiyang Xu\\* Jay-Yoon Lee\\* Lifu Huang\\*", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 141, + 710, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\spadesuit$ Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech", + "bbox": [ + 300, + 159, + 702, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "*Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University", + "bbox": [ + 252, + 175, + 749, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{zhiyangx, lifuh}@vt.edu", + "bbox": [ + 381, + 193, + 620, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lee.jayyoon@snu.ac.kr", + "bbox": [ + 406, + 210, + 594, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data scarcity has been the main factor that hinders the progress of event extraction. To overcome this issue, we propose a Self-Training with Feedback (STF) framework that leverages the large-scale unlabeled data and acquires feedback for each new event prediction from the unlabeled data by comparing it to the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graph of the same sentence. Specifically, STF consists of (1) a base event extraction model trained on existing event annotations and then applied to large-scale unlabeled corpora to predict new event mentions as pseudo training samples, and (2) a novel scoring model that takes in each new predicted event trigger, an argument, its argument role, as well as their paths in the AMR graph to estimate a compatibility score indicating the correctness of the pseudo label. The compatibility scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the model learning on the pseudo labels during self-training. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05- $\\mathbf{E}^{+}$ , and ERE, demonstrate the effectiveness of the STF framework on event extraction, especially event argument extraction, with significant performance gain over the base event extraction models and strong baselines. Our experimental analysis further shows that STF is a generic framework as it can be applied to improve most, if not all, event extraction models by leveraging large-scale unlabeled data, even when high-quality AMR graph annotations are not available. $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 277, + 460, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 756, + 258, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Event extraction (EE), which aims to identify and classify event triggers and arguments, has been a long-standing challenging problem in natural language processing. Despite the large performance leap brought by advances in deep learning, recent", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 781, + 487, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "studies (Deng et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) have shown that the data scarcity of existing event annotations has been the major issue that hinders the progress of EE. For example, in ACE-05 $^{2}$ , one of the most popular event extraction benchmark datasets, 10 of the 33 event types have less than 80 annotations. However, creating event annotations is extremely expensive and time-consuming, e.g., it takes several linguists over one year to annotate 500 documents with about 5000 event mentions for ACE-05.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 882, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To overcome the data scarcity issue of EE, previous studies (Chen and Ji, 2009; Liao and Grishman, 2011a; Ferguson et al., 2018a) develop self-training methods that allow the trained EE model to learn further by regarding its own predictions on large-scale unlabeled corpora as pseudo labels. However, simply adding the high-confidence event predictions to the training set inevitably introduces noises (Liu et al., 2021; Arazo et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2018), especially given that the current state-of-the-art performance of event argument extraction is still less than $60\\%$ F-score. To tackle this challenge, we introduce a Self-Training with Feedback framework, named STF, which consists of an event extraction model that is firstly trained on the existing event annotations and then continually updated on the unlabeled corpus with self-training, and a scoring model that is to evaluate the correctness of the new event predictions (pseudo labels) from the unlabeled corpus, and the scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the learning of the event extraction model on the pseudo labels during self-training, inspired by the REINFORCE algorithms (Williams, 1992).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 430, + 884, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, the event extraction model of our STF framework can be based on any state-of-the-art architecture. In this paper, we choose OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021), due", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 816, + 882, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/collaborations/past-projects/ace", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 891, + 865, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* corresponding authors", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 869, + 290, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1The source code and model checkpoints are publicly available at https://github.com/VT-NLP/Event Extraction_with_Self_Training.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 881, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10421", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10421-10437", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 774, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to their superior performance and publicly available source code. The scoring model leverages the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) which has been proven to be able to provide rich semantic and structural signals to map AMR structures to event predictions (Huang et al., 2016, 2018; Wang et al., 2021b) and thus their compatibility can indicate the correctness of each event prediction. The scoring model is a self-attention network that takes in a predicted event trigger, a candidate argument and its argument role, as well as their path in the AMR graph of the whole sentence, and computes a score ranging in $[-1, 1]$ based on the compatibility between the AMR and the predicted event structure: -1 means incompatible, 1 means compatible, and 0 means uncertain. Inspired by the REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992), we multiply the compatibility scores and the gradient of the EE model computed on the pseudo event labels during self-training, so as to (1) encourage the event extraction model to follow the gradient and hence maximize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is compatible with the AMR structure; (2) negate the gradient and minimize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is incompatible with the AMR structure; and (3) reduce the magnitude of the gradient when the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the pseudo label.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 492, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We take AMR $3.0^{3}$ and part of the New York Times (NYT) 2004 corpus $^{4}$ as additional unlabeled corpora to enhance the event extraction model with STF, and evaluate the event extraction performance on three public benchmark datasets: ACE05-E $^{5}$ , ACE05-E $^{+6}$ , and ERE-EN $^{7}$ . The experimental results demonstrate that: (1) the vanilla self-training barely improves event extraction due to the noise introduced by the pseudo examples, while the proposed STF framework leverages the compatibility scores from the scoring model as feedback and thus makes more robust and efficient use of the pseudo labels; (2) STF is a generic framework and can be applied to improve most, if not all, of the event extraction models optimized by gradient descent algorithm and achieves significant improvement over the base event extraction models and strong baselines on event argument extraction on the three public benchmark datasets; (3) By exploiting dif", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 535, + 490, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ferent unlabeled corpora with gold or system-based AMR parsing, STF always improves the base event extraction models, demonstrating that it can work with various qualities of AMR parsing. Notably, different from previous studies (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) that require high-quality AMR graphs as input to the model during both training and inference, STF does not require any AMR graphs during inference, making it more computationally efficient and free from the potential errors propagated from AMR parsing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 STF for Event Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 764, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The event extraction task consists of three subtasks: event detection, argument identification and argument role classification. Given an input sentence $W = [w_{1}, w_{2}, \\dots, w_{N}]$ , event detection aims to identify the span of an event trigger $\\tau_{i}$ in $W$ and assign a label $l_{\\tau_{i}} \\in \\mathcal{T}$ where $\\mathcal{T}$ denotes the set of target event types. Argument identification aims to find the span of an argument $\\varepsilon_{j}$ in $W$ , and argument role classification further predicts a role $\\alpha_{ij} \\in \\mathcal{A}$ that the argument $\\varepsilon_{j}$ plays in an event $\\tau_{i}$ given the set of target argument roles $\\mathcal{A}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 303, + 885, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1 shows the overview of our STF framework which consists of two training stages. At the first stage, a base event extraction model (Section 2.1) is trained on a labeled dataset. At the second stage, we apply the trained event extraction model to an unlabeled corpus to predict new event mentions. Instead of directly taking the new event predictions as pseudo training examples like the vanilla self-training, we propose a novel scoring model (Section 2.2) to estimate the correctness of each event prediction by measuring its compatibility to the corresponding AMR graph, and then take both event predictions and their compatibility scores to continue to train the base event extraction model while the scores update the gradient computed on pseudo labels (Section 2.3). After the training of the second stage, we get a new event extraction model and evaluate it on the test set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 885, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Base Event Extraction Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 784, + 788, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our proposed framework can be applied to most, if not all, event extraction models. We select OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) as base models given their state-of-the-art performance on the event extraction task and publicly available source code. Next, we briefly describe the common architectures in the two models", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{3}$ https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2020T02.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 851, + 411, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{4}$ https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2008T19", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 866, + 408, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{5}$ https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 879, + 408, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{6}$ https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 892, + 408, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{7}$ Deep Exploration and Filtering of Test (DEFT) program.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10422", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6aa067a9242a8c6d06ccec8e4dc601b8f4eff17cab6c438a71f4e9d92e208bf3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: The overall framework of STF (We omit the first stage of STF.). Given an unlabeled sentence $\\tilde{W}$ : (1) run an event extraction model to compute event predictions and an AMR parser to parse it into an AMR graph; (2) map the predicted trigger and argument to corresponding nodes in the AMR graph, find their AMR path and combine it with the predicted event type and argument role into a new sequence (Life:Die, killed, ARG0, commands, ARG0, PLACE, Iraq, Other); (3) feed the sequence into the scoring model to compute a compatibility score; (4) leverage the pseudo label and compatibility score to further update the event extraction model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 884, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and refer readers to the original papers for more details. OneIE and AMR-IE perform event extraction in four8 steps. First, a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) computes the contextual representations $\\mathbf{W}$ for an input sentence $W$ . Second, two identification layers take in the contextual representations $\\mathbf{W}$ . One identifies the spans of event triggers and the other identifies the spans of arguments (i.e., entities). Both of them are based on a linear classification layer followed by a CRF layer (Lafferty et al., 2001) to capture the dependencies between predicted tags. They are optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of the gold-standard tag path, which is denoted as $\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Tri\\_I}}$ and $\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Arg\\_I}}$ for trigger and argument identification, respectively. Third, for each trigger or argument candidate, we compute its representation by averaging the token representations within the whole identified span. Each trigger representation is fed into a classification layer to predict its type by minimizing the cross-entropy classification loss $\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Tri\\_C}}$ . Each pair of trigger and argument representations are concatenated and fed into another classification layer to predict the argument role, which is also optimized by the cross-entropy loss $\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Arg\\_C}}$ . Finally, both OneIE and AMR-IE learn an additional global feature vector to capture the interactions across sub-tasks (e.g., a $LOC$ entity is impossible to be the Attacker of an Attack event)", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 413, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and instances (e.g., the Defendant of a Sentence event can also be an Agent of a Die event). During training, a global feature score is computed for the predicted information graph and the gold annotation, respectively, from their global feature vectors. The training objective is to minimize the gap between these two global feature scores, denoted as $\\mathbf{L}^G$ . Thus, the overall loss for the base event extraction model is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 413, + 884, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} = \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {T r i} _ {-} \\mathrm {I}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {A r g} _ {-} \\mathrm {I}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {T r i} _ {-} \\mathrm {C}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {A r g} _ {-} \\mathrm {C}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {G},\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 567, + 870, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As the first stage of our STF framework, we optimize the base event extraction model on labeled event mentions $\\mathcal{X}_L$ based on $\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{E}}$ and the trained model will later be used to predict new event mentions for self-training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 598, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Scoring Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 689, + 670, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "At the second stage of STF, we aim to further improve the event extraction model by taking the event mentions predicted from an external unlabeled corpus $\\mathcal{X}_u$ as pseudo samples for self-training. To avoid the noise contained in the pseudo samples, we propose a scoring model that can evaluate the correctness of each event prediction. Our scoring model takes AMR graph as a reference motivated by the observation that an event structure usually shares similar semantics and network topology as the AMR graph of the same sentence, thus their compatibility can be used to measure the correctness of each event structure. This observation", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "8We only focus on event extraction task and thus omit the description of relation extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10423", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "has also been discussed and shown effective in previous studies (Rao et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021). However, previous studies directly take AMR graphs as input to the extraction model and thus require AMR graphs during both training and inference, making their performance highly dependent on the quality of AMR parsing. Different from them, our proposed STF only takes AMR graphs during reference to measure the correctness of event predictions during self-training, making it free from the potential errors propagation from AMR parsing during inference.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 489, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a sentence $\\tilde{W} \\in \\mathcal{X}_u$ from the unlabeled corpus and a predicted trigger $\\tilde{\\tau}_i$ and its argument $\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j$ from $\\tilde{W}$ , we aim to estimate a correctness score for each pair of the trigger and argument prediction based on its compatibility with their path in the AMR graph9. Thus, we first apply the state-of-the-art AMR parsing tool (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate an AMR graph for $\\tilde{W}$ : $G = (V,E)$ , $E = \\{(v_i,e_{ij},v_j)|e_{ij} \\in \\mathcal{R}\\}$ . We follow (Huang et al., 2016; Zhang and Ji, 2021) and group the original set of AMR relations into 19 categories10, thus $e_{ij}$ denotes a particular relation category and $\\mathcal{R}$ denotes the set of AMR relation categories. Then, we identify the $v_i$ , $v_j$ from AMR graph $G$ as the corresponding node of $\\tilde{\\tau}_i$ , $\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j$ , by node alignment following Zhang and Ji (2021). Then, we utilize the Breadth First Search to find the shortest path $p_{i,j}$ that connects and includes, $v_i$ and $v_j$ in $G$ . If there is no path between $v_i$ and $v_j$ , we add a new edge to connect them and assign other as the relation.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 277, + 489, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a predicted trigger $\\tilde{\\tau}_i$ and its type $\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}$ , a predicted argument $\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j$ and its argument role $\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}$ , the scoring model estimates their correctness by taking $[\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]$ as input and outputs a compatibility score. As Figure 1 shows, it consists of a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) to encode the sentence $\\tilde{W}$ and obtain the contextual representations for the tokens11, which are then used to initialize the representation of each node in $p_{ij}$ based on the alignment between the input tokens and the nodes in AMR graph following Zhang and Ji (2021). We draw edge representations from the AMR relation embedding matrix $\\mathbf{E}^{rel}$ and com", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 600, + 489, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "bine them with node representations to form $\\mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}$ , a representation for path $p_{ij}$ . We also get an event type representation $\\mathbf{h}_{\\tau_i}$ for $\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}$ from the event-type embedding matrix $\\mathbf{E}^{tri}$ and an argument role representation $\\mathbf{h}_{\\alpha_{ij}}$ for $\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}$ from the argument role embedding matrix $\\mathbf{E}^{arg}$ . Here, $\\mathbf{E}^{rel}$ , $\\mathbf{E}^{tri}$ , and $\\mathbf{E}^{arg}$ are all randomly initialized and will be optimized during training. Finally, we obtain the initial representations $\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init} = [\\mathbf{h}_{\\tau_i}, \\mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}, \\mathbf{h}_{\\alpha_{ij}}]$ for the sequence $[\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To estimate the compatibility between the event trigger and argument prediction and their path in the AMR graph, we apply multi-layer self-attention (Vaswani et al., 2017) over the joint representation of the AMR path and the event prediction $\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}$ to learn better contextual representations for the sequence $[\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i},p_{ij},\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]$ and we add the position embedding $\\mathbf{E}^{pos}$ to $\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}$ before feed it into the self-attention layers:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 247, + 884, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {f i n a l} = s e l f - a t t e n t i o n (\\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {i n i t}) \\times M,\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 554, + 404, + 836, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $M$ denotes the number of attention layers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 436, + 873, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we compute an overall vector representation $\\hat{\\mathbf{H}}_{ij}^{final}$ from $\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{final}$ via average-pooling and feed it into a linear-layer and a Sigmoid function to compute a probability $c_{ij}$ , indicating the correctness of the predicted event trigger and argument. We optimize the scoring model based on the binary cross-entropy objective:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {S c o r e}} = \\operatorname {B C E} \\left(y _ {i j}, c _ {i j}; \\psi\\right),\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 591, + 574, + 798, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $y_{ij} \\in (0,1)$ is a binary label that indicates the argument role is correct ( $y_{ij} = 1$ ) or not ( $y_{ij} = 0$ ). The parameters of the scoring model. During training, we have gold triggers and arguments as positive training instances and we swap the argument roles in positive training instances with randomly sampled incorrect labels to create negative training instances. After training the scoring model, we will fix its parameters and apply it to self-training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 604, + 882, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Self-Training with Feedback", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 776, + 779, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To improve the base event extraction model with self-training, we take the new event predictions $(\\tilde{\\tau}_i,\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i},\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j,\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij})$ from the unlabeled corpus $\\mathcal{X}_u$ as pseudo samples to further train the event extraction", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 797, + 880, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "12We don't consider the cases where the trigger labels are incorrect, since by observation the semantics and structure of AMR graphs are more related to the argument role types between event triggers and their arguments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "9Comparing with the whole AMR graph, the path of the trigger and argument in the AMR graph shows more improvement for the scoring model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 818, + 487, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10The details of AMR relation categories are shown in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 856, + 487, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "11If a token is split into multiple subtokens, we average the representations of all subtokens to obtain an overall token representation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10424", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "model. The gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample is computed as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ng _ {i j} ^ {s t} = \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} \\left(\\tilde {W}, (\\tilde {\\tau} _ {i}, \\tilde {l} _ {\\tau_ {i}}, \\tilde {a} _ {i j}, \\tilde {\\varepsilon} _ {j}); \\theta\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 133, + 436, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\theta$ denotes the parameters of the event extraction model. Note that there can be multiple event predictions in one sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 175, + 489, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Due to the prediction errors of the pseudo labels, simply following the gradients $g_{ij}^{st}$ computed on the pseudo labels can hurt model's performance. Thus, we utilize the correctness score $c_{ij}$ predicted by the scoring model to update the gradients, based on the motivation that: (1) if an event prediction is compatible with the AMR structure, it's likely to be correct and we should encourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (2) on the other side, if an event prediction is incompatible with its AMR structure, it's likely incorrect and we should discourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (3) if the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the event prediction, we should reduce the magnitude of the gradients learned from the pseudo label. Motivated by this, we first design a transformation function $f^c$ to project the correctness score $c_{ij} \\in [0,1]$ into a range $[-1,1]$ where -1 (or $c_{ij} = 0$ ) indicates incompatible, 1 (or $c_{ij} = 1$ ) means compatible, and 0 (or $c_{ij} = 0.5$ ) means uncertain. Here, $f^c$ is based on a linear mapping:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 225, + 489, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf ^ {c} (c _ {i j}) = 2 \\times c _ {i j} - 1\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 581, + 383, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then apply the compatibility scores as feedback to update the gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample during self-training:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 618, + 489, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {S T F}} = \\sum_ {i, j} f ^ {c} \\left(c _ {i j}\\right) \\cdot \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} \\left(\\tilde {W}, \\left(\\tilde {\\tau} _ {i}, \\tilde {l} _ {\\tau_ {i}}, \\tilde {a} _ {i j}, \\tilde {\\varepsilon} _ {j}\\right); \\theta\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 683, + 478, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To improve the efficiency of self-training, we update the event extraction model on every minibatch, and to avoid the model diverging, we combine the supervised training and self-training, so the overall loss for STF is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 737, + 490, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {L} = \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} + \\beta \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {S T F}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 834, + 366, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\beta$ is the combining ratio, $\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{E}}$ is computed on the labeled dataset $\\mathcal{X}_L$ and $\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{STF}}$ is computed on the pseudo-labeled instances from $\\mathcal{X}_u$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experimental Setups", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 83, + 724, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For evaluation, we consider two base event extraction models: OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) due to their superior performance on event extraction and publicly available source code, and demonstrate the effectiveness of STF on three benchmark datasets: ACE05-E, ACE05- $\\mathbf{E}^{+}$ and ERE-EN, with the same evaluation metrics following previous studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022) $^{13}$ . To show the generalizability of STF, we explore two unlabeled corpora for self-training: (1) AMR 3.0 (Knight et al., 2021) which originally contains 55,635 sentences in the training set while each sentence is associated with a manually annotated AMR graph. (2) New York Times Annotated Corpus (NYT) contains over 1.8 million articles that were published between 1987 to 2007. We randomly sample 55,635 sentences $^{14}$ from articles published in 2004. Because NYT dataset does not have AMR annotations, we run a pre-trained AMR parser (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate system AMR parsing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 884, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides taking the recent state-of-the-art event extraction studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022) $^{15}$ as baselines, we also compare our proposed STF with two other training strategies: (1) vanilla Self-Training (Rosenberg et al., 2005) which consists of two stages similar as STF but in the second stage takes each new event prediction from the unlabeled data with a probability higher than 0.9 based on the base event extraction model as a pseudo label and combines them with the labeled data to re-train the event extraction model; and (2) Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning (GradLRE) (Hu et al., 2021b). GradLRE encourages the gradients computed on the pseudo-labeled data to imitate the gradients computed on the labeled data by using the cosine distance between the two sources of gradients as a reward to perform policy gradi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 884, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "13The detailed statistics of ACE05-E, ACE05- $\\mathbf{E}^{+}$ , and EREEN are shown in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 795, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "14To show the effect of unlabeled dataset vs labeled dataset, we sample the same number of the unlabeled sentences as AMR 3.0", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 820, + 882, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "15The scores reported in (Nguyen et al., 2022) are not comparable in the table 3, as their results are not averaged across random seeds. We tried to report their averaged performance by running their model ourselves by contacting the authors, however, their code is publicly unavailable.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 856, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10425", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ent reinforcement learning (Sutton et al., 1999). GradLRE showed improvements over other selftraining methods on low-resource relation extraction which is a similar task to argument role classification. Appendix C describes the training details for both baselines and our approach.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 193, + 346, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Evaluation of Scoring Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 219, + 386, + 236 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first evaluate the performance of the scoring model by measuring how well it distinguishes the correct and incorrect argument role predictions from an event extraction model. Specifically, we compute event predictions by running a fully trained event extraction model (i.e., OneIE or AMR-IE) on the validation and test sets of the three benchmark datasets. Based on the gold event annotations, we create a gold binary label (correct or incorrect) for each argument role prediction to indicate its correctness. For each event prediction, we pass it along with the corresponding AMR graph of the source sentence into the scoring model. If the correctness16 predicted by the scoring model agrees with the gold binary label, we treat it as a true prediction for scoring model, otherwise, a false prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 242, + 489, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To examine the impact of leveraging AMR in scoring model performance, we develop a baseline scoring model that shares the same structure with our proposed scoring model except that it does not take an AMR graph as an input. Specifically, the baseline scoring model just takes the event mention (triggers, arguments and argument labels) in order to measure the compatibility score. The baseline scoring model is essentially an ablation of our scoring model where the AMR path is absent. As shown in Table 2, the performance of our scoring model outperforms the baseline scoring model by 1.4-1.7 F-score on the test sets, demonstrating the effectiveness of AMR graph in characterizing the correctness of each event prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 516, + 489, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 1, we can observe that the semantics and structure of AMR paths can be easily mapped to argument role types. Sometimes, the even triggers are far from their arguments in plain text, but the AMR paths between them is short and informative. Another observation is that the scoring model tends to assign positive scores to argument roles that are", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "more compatible with the AMR paths, although sometimes the scores for the gold argument roles are not the highest.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Evaluation of STF on Event Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 148, + 860, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 shows the event extraction results of both our approach and strong baselines $^{17}$ . For clarity, in the rest of the section, we refer to our proposed framework as $\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ and our proposed framework with the baseline scoring model as $\\mathrm{STF_{W/O\\_AMR}}$ . We can see that, both $\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ and $\\mathrm{STF_{W/O\\_AMR}}$ improve the performance of the event extraction models on argument role classification while the vanilla self-training and GradLRE barely work, demonstrating the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback to the pseudo labels during self-training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 171, + 884, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further analyze the reasons in terms of why the vanilla self-training and GradLRE do not work and notice that: due to the data scarcity, the base event extraction model (i.e., OneIE) performs poorly on many argument roles (lower than $40\\%$ F-score). Thus, the event predictions on unlabeled corpora can be very noisy and inaccurate. The model suffers from confirmation bias (Tarvainen and Valpola, 2017; Arazo et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2020): it accumulates errors and diverges when it's iteratively trained on such noisy pseudo labeled examples during self-training. In addition, we also notice that with self-training, the event extraction model becomes overconfident about its predictions. We check the averaged probability of all the argument role predictions on the unlabeled dataset which is 0.93. In such case, it is clear that the predicted probability can not faithfully reflect the correctness of the predictions, which is referred as the calibration error (Guo et al., 2017; Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana, 2005). Thus, the self-training process which relies on overconfident prediction can become highly biased and diverge from the initial baseline model. In GradLRE, the quality of the reward is highly depend on the averaged gradient direction computed during the supervised training process. However, due to the scarcity of the training data, the stored gradient direction can be unreliable. In addition, the gradient computed on the pseudo-labeled dataset with high reward is used to update the average gradient direction, which can introduce noises into the reward function. As seen", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 884, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "17We show the variance of Base OneIE and $+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ on three datasets in Appendix D.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "16When the correctness score $c^{ij} > 0.5$ computed by the scoring model, the predicted label is correct, otherwise, incorrect.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10426", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fb7e589b240913fec6524d2c8c49b6601ec1aa5efae0e611b82a55e6ffc35337.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Tell that to the family of Margaret Hassan, the school teacher who was brutally tortured and then slaughtered by these same guys, they aren't so bad are they Chris Matthews?AMR Path: [slaughtered, ARG1, teacher, MODIFIER, Margaret Hassan] \nPred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.99 \nGold Arg: Victim; Compatibility Score: 0.99
It is irritating enough to get sued by Sam Sloan; imagine how irritating it would be to get BEATEN by him because you have done something so egregious that a court is forced to agree with him.AMR Path: [sued, ARG0, Sam Sloan] \nPred Arg: Adjudicator; Compatibility Score: -0.99 \nGold Arg: Plaintiff; Compatibility Score: 0.67
Protests against the action aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were held in cities across Libya, Egypt and Lebanon, as well as in Amman, Damascus and the Gaza Strip.AMR Path: [Protests, ARG0, held, ARG1, were, PLACE, Amman] \nPred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.52 \nGold Arg: Place; Compatibility Score: 0.74
Meanwhile Blair arrived in Washington late Wednesday for two days of talks with Bush at the Camp David presidential retreat.AMR Path: [arrived, OTHER, talks, PLACE, retreat] \nPred Arg: Destination; Compatibility Score: -0.94 \nGold Arg: O; Compatibility Score: 0.31
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 880, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c7e99b7b0a468181dbbb19d1d85a332c555016c101192ad4433d6c837c6a2af3.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Qualitative Results of the compatibility scores." + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 2: The F-score $(\\%)$ of the scoring models on various datasets. Scoring w/o AMR is the baseline scoring model without using AMR path. Scoring w/ AMR is the scoring model we proposed." + ], + "table_body": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Scoring w/o AMR87.485.987.986.982.883.1
Scoring w/ AMR88.287.488.888.684.484.5
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 279, + 478, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in Table 3, the best models of self-training and GradLRE are on par or worse than the baseline approach, and these approaches show the detrimental effects as they show a continuous decline of the performance as training proceeds.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 487, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By considering AMR structure, $\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ encourages the event extraction models to predict event structures that are more compatible with AMR graphs. This claim is supported by Table 4, which compares the compatibility scores between the model without STF (OneIE baseline) and one with STF (OneIE +STF) framework on the three benchmark datasets. The compatibility scores are measured by the AMR based scoring models. We can clearly see that the compatibility scores measured on OneIE $+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ are much higher than the scores measured on base OneIE.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 487, + 707 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lastly, we observe that $\\mathrm{OneIE + STF_{AMR}}$ outperforms AMR-IE $^+$ STFAMR, even when AMR-IE performs better than OneIE baseline without STF. We argue the reason is that even though $\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ does not need AMR parsing at inference time, AMR-IE does require AMR graphs at inference time which causes it to suffer from potential errors in the AMR parsing. On the other hand, OneIE trained by $\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ does not require AMR graphs at inference time, making it free from potential error propagation. Figure 2 shows more examples to illustrate how the feedback from AMR structures in STF helps to improve event predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Effect of Confidence Threshold", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 282, + 800, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intuitively, STF can leverage both certain (including compatible and incompatible) and uncertain pseudo labeled examples, as when the example is uncertain, the probability $c$ predicted by the scoring model is close to 0.5 and thus $f^c(c)$ is close to 0, making the gradients computed on this pseudolabeled example close to 0. To verify this claim, we conduct experiments with $\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ by using the probability $c$ predicted by the scoring model to determine certain and uncertain pseudo labels and analyzing their effect to $\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ . Note that we don't use the probability from the base event extraction model due to its calibration error (Guo et al., 2017)18. Specifically, we first select a threshold $s^{st} \\in \\{0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9\\}$ . For each pseudo example, if the probability $c$ predicted by the scoring model is higher than $s^{st}$ (indicating a confident positive prediction) or lower than $1 - s^{st}$ (indicating a confident negative prediction), we will add it for $\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ . The higher the threshold $s^{st}$ , the most certain pseudo labels we can select for $\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ . As Figure 3 shows, $\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ can even benefit from the less-confident pseudo labeled examples with threshold $s^{st}$ around 0.6, demonstrating that it can make better use of most of the predicted events from the unlabeled corpus for self-training.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 303, + 884, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Impact of AMR Parsing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 732, + 744, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "AMR annotations are very expensive and hard to obtain. To show the potential of $\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ in the scenarios where gold AMR parsing is not available, we conduct experiments by leveraging the NYT 2004 corpus as the external unlabeled corpus with system generated AMR parsing for self-training. As shown in Table 5, with system-based AMR, STF can also improve the performance of base event extraction models on all three benchmark datasets,", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 752, + 884, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "18See detailed explanations in Appendix ??", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 791, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10427", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/50afb9adaa8541baa599ec6b3d350f19dca91dd03f6a78bb58c305b974534648.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Tri-CArg-CTri-CArg-CTri-CArg-C
DyGIE (Wadden et al., 2019)69.748.867.342.7--
BERT_QA(Arg (Du and Cardie, 2020)72.453.370.648.357.039.2
FourIE (Nguyen et al., 2021)75.458.073.357.557.948.6
Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021)71.953.871.854.459.448.3
DEGREE (Hsu et al., 2022)73.355.870.956.357.149.6
Query Extract (Wang et al., 2022)--73.655.160.450.4
UIE (Lu et al., 2022)73.454.8----
Base OneIE (Lin et al., 2020)74.057.473.457.260.249.8
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.057.273.857.360.149.4
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.657.473.557.460.550.3
+STFW/O_AMR74.457.973.857.660.451.0
+STFAMR (ours)75.058.973.459.060.652.0
Base AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021)74.457.773.457.260.450.5
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.257.473.457.160.150.2
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.457.873.357.460.350.5
+STFW/O_AMR74.358.073.557.660.551.1
+STFAMR (ours)74.558.573.658.260.451.7
", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 80, + 803, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d04d15a114d0ecb1202132a0049b79e02c5d9efc7cead052f49687eb55ef0b01.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Test F1 scores of event trigger classification (Tri-C), and argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets. * denotes methods we re-implement to fit them into the event extraction task. Bold denotes the best performance in each local section and underline denotes the best global performance." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Sentence & Gold Event MentionsAMR PathBase OneIESTF
With marathon talks at the top world body failing late Thursday to reconcile French and Russian opposition to US-British war plans, the United States upped its military presence, deploying more missile-firing warships to the Red Sea. (Movement:Transport) deploying -> (Agent) -> United StatesARG0\ndeploying United StatesArg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: -1.0Arg Role:Agent\nCompatibility\nScore: 1.0
In Paris, the French media group said parent company chairman Jean - Rene Fourtou will replace Diller as chairman and chief executive of US unit. (Personnel:Start-Position) replace -> (Entity) -> unitand ARG2 Op Medium replace chairmanArg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.22Arg Role:Entity\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.93
In a verdict handed down on Saturday, the judge also ordered Ranjha to pay a fine of 50,000 rupees (about 870 US dollars), they said. (Justice:Fine) fine -> (Adjudicator) -> judgepay ARG1 ARG2 arg0 fine orderedArg Role:Entity\nCompatibility\nScore: -0.98Arg Role:Judiciary\nCompatibility\nScore: 1.0
The Daily Planet raised 3.5 million dollars (2.2 million US) in its initial public offering with one of the new 600 shareholders acquiring 1.0 million dollars worth of shares. (Transaction:Transfer-Money) acquiring -> (Other) -> shareholdersOther\nacquiring shareholdersArg Role:Buyer\nCompatibility\nScore: -1.0Arg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.72
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 395, + 860, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3dee44e3e8590ae6cdfa7e3979c6ea0fdcf66b8be9afa729019bd1d02aff9cf5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Qualitative results of STF. Examples are taken from the development and test splits of ACE05-E. The orange tokens denote event triggers and blue tokens denote arguments. The AMR paths are between event triggers and arguments. The Base OneIE and STF fields show the predicted argument roles from two methods respectively. All the predictions from STF are correct. The compatibility scores are computed by the same scoring model. Note that OneIE and STF do not use AMR graph at inference time and AMR graph is shown just to provide intuitions." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Base OneIE70.168.476.961.976.469.2
+ STFAMR72.270.880.264.078.075.1
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 696, + 482, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and improve over the baseline scoring model without using AMR. The gap between STF with gold AMR and STF with system AMR is small, demonstrating that STF is more robust to the potential errors from AMR parsing.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/30792ec9cefc5dde0f0bfbcf53d68cb4a2c2811ff19afb8c676e80d9f8415c28.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: The compatibility scores computed by scoring models on the development and test sets of the three benchmark datasets." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ACE-EACE-E+ERE-EN
Base OneIE57.457.249.8
+ STF w/o AMR57.957.651.0
+ STF w/ sys_AMR58.258.151.4
+ STF w/ gold_AMR58.959.052.0
", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 694, + 858, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Performance comparison between using gold AMR, system-labeled AMR, and not using AMR.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 813, + 665, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most prior studies have been focusing on learning supervised models (Ji and Grishman, 2008; McClosky et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Feng et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016; Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10428", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/83bc4dff7b94ac1f1f7ba78588ca75a27372244079915783ffd2279c51c26539.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Performance change with different thresholds to select certain pseudo labeled examples for self-training." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 157, + 84, + 423, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; wan; Nguyen et al., 2021) based on manually annotated event mentions. However, the performance of event extraction has been barely improved in recent years, and one of the main reasons lies in the data scarcity and imbalance of the existing event annotations. Several self-training and semi-supervised studies have been proposed to automatically enrich the event annotations. Huang and Riloff (2012) uses extraction patterns based on nouns that, by definition, play a specific role in an event, to automatically label more data. Li et al. (2014) proposes various event inference mechanisms to reveal additional missing event mentions. (Huang, 2020; Huang and Ji, 2020) propose semi-supervised learning to automatically induce new event types and their corresponding event mentions while the performance of old types is also improved. (Liao and Grishman, 2010, 2011b; Ferguson et al., 2018b) propose techniques to select a more relevant and informative corpus for self-training. All these studies cannot handle the noise introduced by the automatically labeled data properly. Compared with them, our STF framework leverages a scoring model to estimate the correctness of each pseudo-labeled example, which further guides the gradient learning of the event extraction model, thus it can efficiently mitigate the impact of the noisy pseudo-labeled examples.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 285, + 489, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-training has been studied for many years (Yarowsky, 1995; Riloff and Wiebe, 2003; Rosenberg et al., 2005) and widely adopted in many tasks including speech recognition (Kahn et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020), biomedical imaging (You et al., 2022a,b), parsing (McClosky et al., 2006; McClosky and Charniak, 2008), and pretraining (Du et al., 2021). Self-Training suffers from inaccurate pseudo labels (Arazo et al., 2020, 2019; Hu et al., 2021a) especially when the teacher", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "model is trained on insufficient and unbalanced datasets. To address this problem, (Pham et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021a; Hu et al., 2021a) propose to utilize the performance of the student model on the held-out labeled data as a Meta-Learning objective to update the teacher model or improve the pseudo-label generation process. Hu et al. (2021b) leverage the cosine distance between gradients computed on labeled data and pseudo-labeled data as feedback to guide the self-training process. (Mehta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2021) leverage the span of named entities as constraints to improve semi-supervised semantic role labeling and syntactic parsing, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 324, + 640, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose a self-training with feedback (STF) framework to overcome the data scarcity issue of the event extract task. The STF framework estimates the correctness of each pseudo event prediction based on its compatibility with the corresponding AMR structure, and takes the compatibility score as feedback to guide the learning of the event extraction model on each pseudo label during self-training. We conduct experiments on three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+, and ERE, and prove that STF is effective and general as it can improve any base event extraction models with significant gains. We further demonstrate that STF can improve event extraction models on large-scale unlabeled corpora even without high-quality AMR annotations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 346, + 884, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 618, + 613, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method utilizes the AMR annotations as additional training signals to alleviate the data scarcity problem in the event extraction task. In this problem setup, generally speaking, AMR annotations are more expensive than event extraction annotations. Nonetheless, in reality, the AMR dataset is much bigger than any existing event extraction dataset, and AMR parsers usually have higher performance than event extraction models. Leveraging existing resources to improve event extraction without requiring additional cost is a feasible and practical direction. Our work has demonstrated the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback from AMR to improve event argument extraction. However, it's still under-explored what additional information and tasks can be leveraged as feedback to improve trigger detection.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10429", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We did not have quantitative results for the alignment between AMR and event graphs. The authors randomly sampled 50 event graphs from ACE05-E and found 41 are aligned with their AMR graphs based on human judgment. In future work, more systematic studies should be conducted to evaluate the alignment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There is a large gap between the validation and testing datasets in terms of label distribution on ACE05-E and ACE05-E+. We observe that performance improvement on the validation set sometimes leads to performance decreasing on the test set. Both the validation and test dataset miss certain labels for event trigger types and argument role types. The annotations in the training set, validation set, and test set are scarce and highly unbalanced, which causes the low performance on trained models. We argue that a large-scale more balanced benchmark dataset in the event extraction domain can lead to more solid conclusions and facilitate research.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 198, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 432, + 278, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank the anonymous reviewers and area chair for their valuable time and constructive comments. This research is based upon work supported by the Amazon Research Award. Jay-Yoon Lee was supported in part by the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 458, + 489, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 581, + 213, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2019. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. CoRR, abs/1908.02983.", + "Eric Arazo, Diego Ortega, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2020. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, IJCNN 2020, Glasgow, United Kingdom, July 19-24, 2020, pages 1-8. IEEE.", + "Ramón Fernandez Astudillo, Miguel Ballesteros, Tahira Naseem, Austin Blodgett, and Radu Florian. 2020. Transition-based parsing with stack-transformers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 1001-1007. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 627, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, LAW-ID@ACL 2013, August 8-9, 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, pages 178-186. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "Y. Chen, L. Xu, K. Liu, D. Zeng, and J. Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multi-pooling convolutional neural networks. In Proc. ACL2015.", + "Zheng Chen and Heng Ji. 2009. Can one language bootstrap the other: a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2009 Workshop on Semi-Supervised Learning for Natural Language Processing, pages 66-74.", + "Shumin Deng, Ningyu Zhang, Luoqiu Li, Chen Hui, Tou Huaixiao, Mosha Chen, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Ontoed: Low-resource event detection with ontology embedding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2828-2839.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jingfei Du, Edouard Grave, Belize Gunel, Vishrav Chaudhary, Onur Celebi, Michael Auli, Veselin Stoyanov, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Self-training improves pre-training for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5408-5418. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xinya Du and Claire Cardie. 2020. Event extraction by answering (almost) natural questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 671-683, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiaocheng Feng, Lifu Huang, Duyu Tang, Bing Qin, Heng Ji, and Ting Liu. 2016. A language-independent neural network for event detection. In The 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page 66.", + "James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018a. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10430", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364.", + "James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S. Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018b. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1321-1330. PMLR.", + "I-Hung Hsu, Kuan-Hao Huang, Elizabeth Boschee, Scott Miller, Prem Natarajan, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. DEGREE: A data-efficient generation-based event extraction model. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1890-1908. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Fukun Ma, Chenyao Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021a. Semi-supervised relation extraction via incremental meta self-training. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 487-496. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Yawen Yang, Xiaohe Li, Li Lin, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021b. Gradient imitation reinforcement learning for low resource relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 2737-2746. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Lifu Huang. 2020. Cold-start universal information extraction. Ph.D. thesis.", + "Lifu Huang, Taylor Cassidy, Xiaocheng Feng, Heng Ji, Clare Voss, Jiawei Han, and Avirup Sil. 2016. Liberal event extraction and event schema induction. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 258-268.", + "Lifu Huang and Heng Ji. 2020. Semi-supervised new event type induction and event detection. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 718-724." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).", + "Ruihong Huang and Ellen Riloff. 2012. Bootstrapped training of event extraction classifiers. In EACL 2012, 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, April 23-27, 2012, pages 286-295. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "Heng Ji and Ralph Grishman. 2008. Refining event extraction through cross-document inference. In Proceedings of ACL-08: Hlt, pages 254-262.", + "Lu Jiang, Zhengyuan Zhou, Thomas Leung, Li-Jia Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Mentornet: Learning data-driven curriculum for very deep neural networks on corrupted labels. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2309-2318. PMLR.", + "Jacob Kahn, Ann Lee, and Awni Hannun. 2020. Self-training for end-to-end speech recognition. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7084-7088.", + "Kevin Knight, Bianca Badarau, Laura Baranescu, Claire Bonial, Madalina Bardocz, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Daniel Marcu, Martha Palmer, Tim O'Gorman, et al. 2021. Abstract meaning representation (amr) annotation release 3.0.", + "John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In ICML.", + "Peifeng Li, Qiaoming Zhu, and Guodong Zhou. 2014. Employing event inference to improve semi-supervised chinese event extraction. In COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference: Technical Papers, August 23-29, 2014, Dublin, Ireland, pages 2161-2171. ACL.", + "Qi Li, Heng Ji, and Liang Huang. 2013. Joint event extraction via structured prediction with global features. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2013, 4-9 August 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 73-82. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2010. Filtered ranking for bootstrapping in event extraction. In COLING 2010, 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China, pages 680-688. Tsinghua University Press." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10431", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011a. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 260-265.", + "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011b. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? A case study on event extraction. In The 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Conference, 19-24 June, 2011, Portland, Oregon, USA - Short Papers, pages 260-265. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692.", + "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2Event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2795–2806, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "D. McClosky, M. Surdeanu, and C. D. Manning. 2011. Event extraction as dependency parsing. In ACL, pages 1626-1635." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "David McClosky and Eugene Charniak. 2008. Self-training for biomedical parsing. In ACL 2008, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 15-20, 2008, Columbus, Ohio, USA, Short Papers, pages 101-104. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "David McClosky, Eugene Charniak, and Mark Johnson. 2006. Effective self-training for parsing. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, June 4-9, 2006, New York, New York, USA. The Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Jay Yoon Lee, and Jaime G. Carbonell. 2018. Towards semi-supervised learning for deep semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4958-4963. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Minh Van Nguyen, Viet Lai, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2021. Cross-task instance representation interactions and label dependencies for joint information extraction with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 27-38. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Minh Van Nguyen, Bonan Min, Franck Dernoncourt, and Thien Nguyen. 2022. Joint extraction of entities, relations, and events via modeling inter-instance and inter-label dependencies. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4363-4374, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Thien Huu Nguyen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ralph Grishman. 2016. Joint event extraction via recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 300-309.", + "Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. 2005. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. pages 625-632.", + "Daniel S. Park, Yu Zhang, Ye Jia, Wei Han, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Bo Li, Yonghui Wu, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Improved noisy student training for automatic speech recognition. CoRR, abs/2005.09629.", + "Hieu Pham, Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Meta pseudo labels. CoRR, abs/2003.10580.", + "Sudha Rao, Daniel Marcu, Kevin Knight, and Hal Daumé III. 2017. Biomedical event extraction using Abstract Meaning Representation. In BioNLP 2017," + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10432", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "pages 126-135, Vancouver, Canada., Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ellen Riloff and Janyce Wiebe. 2003. Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2003, Sapporo, Japan, July 11-12, 2003.", + "Chuck Rosenberg, Martial Hebert, and Henry Schneiderman. 2005. Semi-supervised self-training of object detection models. In 7th IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision / IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing (WACV/MOTION 2005), 5-7 January 2005, Breckenridge, CO, USA, pages 29-36. IEEE Computer Society.", + "Richard S. Sutton, David A. McAllester, Satinder Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 1999. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12, [NIPS Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, November 29 - December 4, 1999], pages 1057-1063. The MIT Press.", + "Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. 2017. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 1195-1204.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. CoRR, abs/1706.03762.", + "David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5783-5788. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sijia Wang, Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Lichao Sun, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Query and extract: Refining event extraction as type-oriented binary decoding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 169-182. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yaqing Wang, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Haoda Chu, Yuancheng Tu, Ming Wu, Jing Gao, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021a. Meta self-training for few-shot neural sequence labeling. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 1737-1747. ACM.", + "Ziqi Wang, Xiaozhi Wang, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Lei Hou, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Zhou." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2021b. CLEVE: contrastive pre-training for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6283-6297. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256.", + "Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay-Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 4818-4831. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "David Yarowsky. 1995. Unsupervised word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 26-30 June 1995, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, Proceedings, pages 189-196. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers / ACL.", + "Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Fenglin Liu, Haoran Su, Xiaoran Zhang, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022a. Mine your own anatomy: Revisiting medical image segmentation with extremely limited labels. CoRR, abs/2209.13476.", + "Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022b. Bootstrapping semi-supervised medical image segmentation with anatomical-aware contrastive distillation. CoRR, abs/2206.02307.", + "Zixuan Zhang and Heng Ji. 2021. Abstract meaning representation guided graph encoding and decoding for joint information extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 39-49. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Groups of AMR Relations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 770, + 774, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7 shows the new categories and labels of AMR relations.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 797, + 882, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B The Statistics of Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 844, + 763, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7 shows the statistics of the three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+ and ERE-EN.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10433", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fc1b5cd3e84b4f7c0e5d5edc67575304f39a5259b3154597d947de24780820b2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Group LabelAMR Relations
ARG0ARG0
ARG1ARG1
ARG2ARG2
ARG3ARG3
ARG4ARG4
Destinationdestination
Sourcesource
Instrumentinstrument
Beneficiarybeneficiary
Prep rolesrole starts with prep
Op rolesrole start with op
Entity rolewiki, name
Arg-X roleARG5, ARG6, ARG7 ARG8, ARG9
Place rolelocation, path, direction
Medium rolemanner, poss, medium, topic
Modifier roledomain, mod, example
Part-whole rolepart, consist, subevent, subset
Time rolecalendar, century, day, dayperiod, decade, era, month, quarter, season,timezone, weekday, year, year2, time
Otherspurpose, li, quant, polarity, condition, extent, degree, cnt1, cnt2, ARG5, cnt3, concession, ord, unit, mode, value, frequency, polite, age, accompanier, cnt4, cnt10, cnt5, cnt6, cnt7, cnt8, cnt9, cnt11, scale, conj-as-if, rel
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 485, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: The 19 groups of the AMR relations used in our paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 485, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Training Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 532, + 294, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For all experiments, we use Roberta-large as the language model which has 355M parameters. We train all of our models on a single A100 GPU.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 487, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Base OneIE We follow the same training process as (Lin et al., 2020) to train the OneIE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters the same as (Lin et al., 2020). For each dataset we train 3 OneIE models and report the averaged performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 618, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Base AMR-IE We follow the same training process as (Zhang and Ji, 2021) to train the AMR-IE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters exactly the same as (Zhang", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and Ji, 2021). For each dataset we train 3 AMR-IE models and report the averaged performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Model We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the score model for 60 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-4 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 10. The scoring model contains two self-attention layers. We train 3 scoring models and reported the averaged performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 128, + 884, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Training For self-training we use SGD as optimizer and continue to train the converged base OneIE model for 30 epochs with batch size 12, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters except the CRF layers and global features which are frozen. For self-training, we use 0.9 as the threshold to select the confident predictions as pseudo-labeled instances. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 268, + 884, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning For GradLRE, we use the BertAdam as the optimizer with batch size 16, learning rate 1e-5 and weight decay 1e-5 for the language encoder and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 1e-3 for other parameters to first train OneIE model for 60 epochs. The standard gradient direction vector is computed by averaging the gradient vector on each optimization step. Then following the same training process in the original paper, we perform 10 more epochs of Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning, and set the threshold for high reward as 0.5. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 457, + 882, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation For STF, we first train the OneIE model on the labeled dataset for 10 epochs and continue to train it on the mixture of unlabeled data and labeled dataset for 70 more epochs with batch size 10, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters. We leverage a linear scheduler to compute the value for the loss combining ratio $\\beta$ . The value of $\\beta$ is computed as $\\frac{\\text{epoch}}{70}$ . For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance. For model selection, we propose a new method called Compatibility-Score Based Model", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10434", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7bbde690a6a9623a7614cdab2f98534ad95a859db81ab4a92fc99e5497c0e3a9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# Sent17,17292383219,24090267614,7361,2091,163
# Entities29,0062,4513,01747,5253,4223,67338,8643,3203,291
# Events4,2024504034,4194684246,208525551
", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 82, + 771, + 166 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Selection which is discussed in the following paragraph.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 223, + 489, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The data scarcity problem not only appears in the training data of ACE-05, ACE-05+ and ERE-EN but appears in the development set. For example, in ACE-05, the development set only contains only 603 labeled argument roles for 22 argument role classes and 7 argument role classes have lees than 10 instances. To alleviate this problem, we propose to leverage part of the large-scale unlabeled dataset as a held-out development set. At the end of each epoch, instead of evaluating the event extraction model on the development set, we run the event extraction model on the unlabeled held-out development set to make event predictions and run the scoring model on the event predictions to compute compatibility scores. We utilize the averaged compatibility scores computed on all instances in the unlabeled held-out development datasets as the model selection criteria. We argue this is another application of the scoring model since its goal is to evaluate the correctness of event predictions. The size of the unlabeled held-out development set is 2,000.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 263, + 489, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Results of Base OneIE and $+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 468, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show the F1 scores of Base OneIE and $+ \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ on three benchmark datasets with variances denoted. As one can see that Base OneIE and $+ \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}$ have similar variances on all three datasets except ACE05-E+. We leave how to reduce the variance of argument role classification to future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7a4bfab9812b59ee799ccfcd8fbadfc128731bfaa48a46319f6ee68d63d5800a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: The statistics of the three benchmarks used in our paper." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Arg-CArg-CArg-C
Base OneIE57.4 ±1.2357.2 ±0.3249.8 ±0.45
+STFAMR (ours)58.9 ±1.2859.0 ±1.0352.0 ±0.40
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 791, + 482, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Test F1 scores of argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 863, + 485, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10435", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7", + "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We are not aware of potential risks in our work.", + "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 695, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 298, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 321, + 146, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3", + "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We don't introduce new artifacts in the paper.", + "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? not applicable", + "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? \nwe didn't collect data", + "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? not applicable", + "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix B" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 346, + 880, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 788, + 146, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? appendix C", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10436", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? \nappendix C", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? \nappendix C", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? not applicable", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 878, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10437", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_model.json b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ed0add7f9c56a34989e8ae5b8d39489807dd957 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3017 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.089, + 0.868, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning from a Friend: Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.142, + 0.712, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyang Xu\\* Jay-Yoon Lee\\* Lifu Huang\\*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.301, + 0.16, + 0.704, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\spadesuit\\)Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.253, + 0.177, + 0.751, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.383, + 0.195, + 0.621, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{zhiyangx, lifuh}@vt.edu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.408, + 0.211, + 0.595, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lee.jayyoon@snu.ac.kr" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.278, + 0.461, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data scarcity has been the main factor that hinders the progress of event extraction. To overcome this issue, we propose a Self-Training with Feedback (STF) framework that leverages the large-scale unlabeled data and acquires feedback for each new event prediction from the unlabeled data by comparing it to the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graph of the same sentence. Specifically, STF consists of (1) a base event extraction model trained on existing event annotations and then applied to large-scale unlabeled corpora to predict new event mentions as pseudo training samples, and (2) a novel scoring model that takes in each new predicted event trigger, an argument, its argument role, as well as their paths in the AMR graph to estimate a compatibility score indicating the correctness of the pseudo label. The compatibility scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the model learning on the pseudo labels during self-training. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-\\(\\mathbf{E}^{+}\\), and ERE, demonstrate the effectiveness of the STF framework on event extraction, especially event argument extraction, with significant performance gain over the base event extraction models and strong baselines. Our experimental analysis further shows that STF is a generic framework as it can be applied to improve most, if not all, event extraction models by leveraging large-scale unlabeled data, even when high-quality AMR graph annotations are not available.\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.757, + 0.26, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.782, + 0.489, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Event extraction (EE), which aims to identify and classify event triggers and arguments, has been a long-standing challenging problem in natural language processing. Despite the large performance leap brought by advances in deep learning, recent" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.883, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "studies (Deng et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) have shown that the data scarcity of existing event annotations has been the major issue that hinders the progress of EE. For example, in ACE-05\\(^{2}\\), one of the most popular event extraction benchmark datasets, 10 of the 33 event types have less than 80 annotations. However, creating event annotations is extremely expensive and time-consuming, e.g., it takes several linguists over one year to annotate 500 documents with about 5000 event mentions for ACE-05." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.431, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To overcome the data scarcity issue of EE, previous studies (Chen and Ji, 2009; Liao and Grishman, 2011a; Ferguson et al., 2018a) develop self-training methods that allow the trained EE model to learn further by regarding its own predictions on large-scale unlabeled corpora as pseudo labels. However, simply adding the high-confidence event predictions to the training set inevitably introduces noises (Liu et al., 2021; Arazo et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2018), especially given that the current state-of-the-art performance of event argument extraction is still less than \\(60\\%\\) F-score. To tackle this challenge, we introduce a Self-Training with Feedback framework, named STF, which consists of an event extraction model that is firstly trained on the existing event annotations and then continually updated on the unlabeled corpus with self-training, and a scoring model that is to evaluate the correctness of the new event predictions (pseudo labels) from the unlabeled corpus, and the scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the learning of the event extraction model on the pseudo labels during self-training, inspired by the REINFORCE algorithms (Williams, 1992)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.818, + 0.884, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, the event extraction model of our STF framework can be based on any state-of-the-art architecture. In this paper, we choose OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021), due" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.892, + 0.866, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/collaborations/past-projects/ace" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.87, + 0.292, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* corresponding authors" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.882, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1The source code and model checkpoints are publicly available at https://github.com/VT-NLP/Event Extraction_with_Self_Training." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.87, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10421" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.776, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10421-10437" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to their superior performance and publicly available source code. The scoring model leverages the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) which has been proven to be able to provide rich semantic and structural signals to map AMR structures to event predictions (Huang et al., 2016, 2018; Wang et al., 2021b) and thus their compatibility can indicate the correctness of each event prediction. The scoring model is a self-attention network that takes in a predicted event trigger, a candidate argument and its argument role, as well as their path in the AMR graph of the whole sentence, and computes a score ranging in \\([-1, 1]\\) based on the compatibility between the AMR and the predicted event structure: -1 means incompatible, 1 means compatible, and 0 means uncertain. Inspired by the REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992), we multiply the compatibility scores and the gradient of the EE model computed on the pseudo event labels during self-training, so as to (1) encourage the event extraction model to follow the gradient and hence maximize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is compatible with the AMR structure; (2) negate the gradient and minimize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is incompatible with the AMR structure; and (3) reduce the magnitude of the gradient when the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the pseudo label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.536, + 0.492, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We take AMR \\(3.0^{3}\\) and part of the New York Times (NYT) 2004 corpus\\(^{4}\\) as additional unlabeled corpora to enhance the event extraction model with STF, and evaluate the event extraction performance on three public benchmark datasets: ACE05-E\\(^{5}\\), ACE05-E\\(^{+6}\\), and ERE-EN\\(^{7}\\). The experimental results demonstrate that: (1) the vanilla self-training barely improves event extraction due to the noise introduced by the pseudo examples, while the proposed STF framework leverages the compatibility scores from the scoring model as feedback and thus makes more robust and efficient use of the pseudo labels; (2) STF is a generic framework and can be applied to improve most, if not all, of the event extraction models optimized by gradient descent algorithm and achieves significant improvement over the base event extraction models and strong baselines on event argument extraction on the three public benchmark datasets; (3) By exploiting dif" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ferent unlabeled corpora with gold or system-based AMR parsing, STF always improves the base event extraction models, demonstrating that it can work with various qualities of AMR parsing. Notably, different from previous studies (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) that require high-quality AMR graphs as input to the model during both training and inference, STF does not require any AMR graphs during inference, making it more computationally efficient and free from the potential errors propagated from AMR parsing." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.277, + 0.766, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 STF for Event Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.304, + 0.886, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The event extraction task consists of three subtasks: event detection, argument identification and argument role classification. Given an input sentence \\( W = [w_{1}, w_{2}, \\dots, w_{N}] \\), event detection aims to identify the span of an event trigger \\( \\tau_{i} \\) in \\( W \\) and assign a label \\( l_{\\tau_{i}} \\in \\mathcal{T} \\) where \\( \\mathcal{T} \\) denotes the set of target event types. Argument identification aims to find the span of an argument \\( \\varepsilon_{j} \\) in \\( W \\), and argument role classification further predicts a role \\( \\alpha_{ij} \\in \\mathcal{A} \\) that the argument \\( \\varepsilon_{j} \\) plays in an event \\( \\tau_{i} \\) given the set of target argument roles \\( \\mathcal{A} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.482, + 0.886, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1 shows the overview of our STF framework which consists of two training stages. At the first stage, a base event extraction model (Section 2.1) is trained on a labeled dataset. At the second stage, we apply the trained event extraction model to an unlabeled corpus to predict new event mentions. Instead of directly taking the new event predictions as pseudo training examples like the vanilla self-training, we propose a novel scoring model (Section 2.2) to estimate the correctness of each event prediction by measuring its compatibility to the corresponding AMR graph, and then take both event predictions and their compatibility scores to continue to train the base event extraction model while the scores update the gradient computed on pseudo labels (Section 2.3). After the training of the second stage, we get a new event extraction model and evaluate it on the test set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.785, + 0.789, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Base Event Extraction Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our proposed framework can be applied to most, if not all, event extraction models. We select OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) as base models given their state-of-the-art performance on the event extraction task and publicly available source code. Next, we briefly describe the common architectures in the two models" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.852, + 0.413, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2020T02." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.867, + 0.41, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{4}\\)https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2008T19" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.88, + 0.41, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{5}\\)https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.893, + 0.41, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{6}\\)https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{7}\\)Deep Exploration and Filtering of Test (DEFT) program." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.852, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10422" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.317, + 0.884, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The overall framework of STF (We omit the first stage of STF.). Given an unlabeled sentence \\(\\tilde{W}\\): (1) run an event extraction model to compute event predictions and an AMR parser to parse it into an AMR graph; (2) map the predicted trigger and argument to corresponding nodes in the AMR graph, find their AMR path and combine it with the predicted event type and argument role into a new sequence (Life:Die, killed, ARG0, commands, ARG0, PLACE, Iraq, Other); (3) feed the sequence into the scoring model to compute a compatibility score; (4) leverage the pseudo label and compatibility score to further update the event extraction model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.414, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and refer readers to the original papers for more details. OneIE and AMR-IE perform event extraction in four8 steps. First, a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) computes the contextual representations \\(\\mathbf{W}\\) for an input sentence \\(W\\). Second, two identification layers take in the contextual representations \\(\\mathbf{W}\\). One identifies the spans of event triggers and the other identifies the spans of arguments (i.e., entities). Both of them are based on a linear classification layer followed by a CRF layer (Lafferty et al., 2001) to capture the dependencies between predicted tags. They are optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of the gold-standard tag path, which is denoted as \\(\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Tri\\_I}}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Arg\\_I}}\\) for trigger and argument identification, respectively. Third, for each trigger or argument candidate, we compute its representation by averaging the token representations within the whole identified span. Each trigger representation is fed into a classification layer to predict its type by minimizing the cross-entropy classification loss \\(\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Tri\\_C}}\\). Each pair of trigger and argument representations are concatenated and fed into another classification layer to predict the argument role, which is also optimized by the cross-entropy loss \\(\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Arg\\_C}}\\). Finally, both OneIE and AMR-IE learn an additional global feature vector to capture the interactions across sub-tasks (e.g., a \\(LOC\\) entity is impossible to be the Attacker of an Attack event)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.414, + 0.885, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and instances (e.g., the Defendant of a Sentence event can also be an Agent of a Die event). During training, a global feature score is computed for the predicted information graph and the gold annotation, respectively, from their global feature vectors. The training objective is to minimize the gap between these two global feature scores, denoted as \\(\\mathbf{L}^G\\). Thus, the overall loss for the base event extraction model is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.568, + 0.871, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} = \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {T r i} _ {-} \\mathrm {I}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {A r g} _ {-} \\mathrm {I}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {T r i} _ {-} \\mathrm {C}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {A r g} _ {-} \\mathrm {C}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {G},\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.599, + 0.884, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As the first stage of our STF framework, we optimize the base event extraction model on labeled event mentions \\(\\mathcal{X}_L\\) based on \\(\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{E}}\\) and the trained model will later be used to predict new event mentions for self-training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.69, + 0.671, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Scoring Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "At the second stage of STF, we aim to further improve the event extraction model by taking the event mentions predicted from an external unlabeled corpus \\(\\mathcal{X}_u\\) as pseudo samples for self-training. To avoid the noise contained in the pseudo samples, we propose a scoring model that can evaluate the correctness of each event prediction. Our scoring model takes AMR graph as a reference motivated by the observation that an event structure usually shares similar semantics and network topology as the AMR graph of the same sentence, thus their compatibility can be used to measure the correctness of each event structure. This observation" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8We only focus on event extraction task and thus omit the description of relation extraction." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10423" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "has also been discussed and shown effective in previous studies (Rao et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021). However, previous studies directly take AMR graphs as input to the extraction model and thus require AMR graphs during both training and inference, making their performance highly dependent on the quality of AMR parsing. Different from them, our proposed STF only takes AMR graphs during reference to measure the correctness of event predictions during self-training, making it free from the potential errors propagation from AMR parsing during inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.278, + 0.49, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a sentence \\(\\tilde{W} \\in \\mathcal{X}_u\\) from the unlabeled corpus and a predicted trigger \\(\\tilde{\\tau}_i\\) and its argument \\(\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j\\) from \\(\\tilde{W}\\), we aim to estimate a correctness score for each pair of the trigger and argument prediction based on its compatibility with their path in the AMR graph9. Thus, we first apply the state-of-the-art AMR parsing tool (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate an AMR graph for \\(\\tilde{W}\\): \\(G = (V,E)\\), \\(E = \\{(v_i,e_{ij},v_j)|e_{ij} \\in \\mathcal{R}\\}\\). We follow (Huang et al., 2016; Zhang and Ji, 2021) and group the original set of AMR relations into 19 categories10, thus \\(e_{ij}\\) denotes a particular relation category and \\(\\mathcal{R}\\) denotes the set of AMR relation categories. Then, we identify the \\(v_i\\), \\(v_j\\) from AMR graph \\(G\\) as the corresponding node of \\(\\tilde{\\tau}_i\\), \\(\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j\\), by node alignment following Zhang and Ji (2021). Then, we utilize the Breadth First Search to find the shortest path \\(p_{i,j}\\) that connects and includes, \\(v_i\\) and \\(v_j\\) in \\(G\\). If there is no path between \\(v_i\\) and \\(v_j\\), we add a new edge to connect them and assign other as the relation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.601, + 0.49, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a predicted trigger \\(\\tilde{\\tau}_i\\) and its type \\(\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}\\), a predicted argument \\(\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j\\) and its argument role \\(\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}\\), the scoring model estimates their correctness by taking \\([\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]\\) as input and outputs a compatibility score. As Figure 1 shows, it consists of a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) to encode the sentence \\(\\tilde{W}\\) and obtain the contextual representations for the tokens11, which are then used to initialize the representation of each node in \\(p_{ij}\\) based on the alignment between the input tokens and the nodes in AMR graph following Zhang and Ji (2021). We draw edge representations from the AMR relation embedding matrix \\(\\mathbf{E}^{rel}\\) and com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "bine them with node representations to form \\(\\mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}\\), a representation for path \\(p_{ij}\\). We also get an event type representation \\(\\mathbf{h}_{\\tau_i}\\) for \\(\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}\\) from the event-type embedding matrix \\(\\mathbf{E}^{tri}\\) and an argument role representation \\(\\mathbf{h}_{\\alpha_{ij}}\\) for \\(\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}\\) from the argument role embedding matrix \\(\\mathbf{E}^{arg}\\). Here, \\(\\mathbf{E}^{rel}\\), \\(\\mathbf{E}^{tri}\\), and \\(\\mathbf{E}^{arg}\\) are all randomly initialized and will be optimized during training. Finally, we obtain the initial representations \\(\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init} = [\\mathbf{h}_{\\tau_i}, \\mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}, \\mathbf{h}_{\\alpha_{ij}}]\\) for the sequence \\([\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.248, + 0.885, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To estimate the compatibility between the event trigger and argument prediction and their path in the AMR graph, we apply multi-layer self-attention (Vaswani et al., 2017) over the joint representation of the AMR path and the event prediction \\(\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}\\) to learn better contextual representations for the sequence \\([\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i},p_{ij},\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]\\) and we add the position embedding \\(\\mathbf{E}^{pos}\\) to \\(\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}\\) before feed it into the self-attention layers:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.556, + 0.405, + 0.837, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {f i n a l} = s e l f - a t t e n t i o n (\\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {i n i t}) \\times M,\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.437, + 0.874, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(M\\) denotes the number of attention layers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.453, + 0.885, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we compute an overall vector representation \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{H}}_{ij}^{final}\\) from \\(\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{final}\\) via average-pooling and feed it into a linear-layer and a Sigmoid function to compute a probability \\(c_{ij}\\), indicating the correctness of the predicted event trigger and argument. We optimize the scoring model based on the binary cross-entropy objective:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.593, + 0.575, + 0.799, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {S c o r e}} = \\operatorname {B C E} \\left(y _ {i j}, c _ {i j}; \\psi\\right),\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.605, + 0.884, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( y_{ij} \\in (0,1) \\) is a binary label that indicates the argument role is correct (\\( y_{ij} = 1 \\)) or not (\\( y_{ij} = 0 \\)). The parameters of the scoring model. During training, we have gold triggers and arguments as positive training instances and we swap the argument roles in positive training instances with randomly sampled incorrect labels to create negative training instances. After training the scoring model, we will fix its parameters and apply it to self-training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.777, + 0.78, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Self-Training with Feedback" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.798, + 0.882, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To improve the base event extraction model with self-training, we take the new event predictions \\((\\tilde{\\tau}_i,\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i},\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j,\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij})\\) from the unlabeled corpus \\(\\mathcal{X}_u\\) as pseudo samples to further train the event extraction" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.87, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12We don't consider the cases where the trigger labels are incorrect, since by observation the semantics and structure of AMR graphs are more related to the argument role types between event triggers and their arguments." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.819, + 0.488, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9Comparing with the whole AMR graph, the path of the trigger and argument in the AMR graph shows more improvement for the scoring model." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.857, + 0.488, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10The details of AMR relation categories are shown in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.881, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11If a token is split into multiple subtokens, we average the representations of all subtokens to obtain an overall token representation." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.819, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10424" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "model. The gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample is computed as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.134, + 0.438, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ng _ {i j} ^ {s t} = \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} \\left(\\tilde {W}, (\\tilde {\\tau} _ {i}, \\tilde {l} _ {\\tau_ {i}}, \\tilde {a} _ {i j}, \\tilde {\\varepsilon} _ {j}); \\theta\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.176, + 0.49, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\theta\\) denotes the parameters of the event extraction model. Note that there can be multiple event predictions in one sentence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.226, + 0.49, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Due to the prediction errors of the pseudo labels, simply following the gradients \\( g_{ij}^{st} \\) computed on the pseudo labels can hurt model's performance. Thus, we utilize the correctness score \\( c_{ij} \\) predicted by the scoring model to update the gradients, based on the motivation that: (1) if an event prediction is compatible with the AMR structure, it's likely to be correct and we should encourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (2) on the other side, if an event prediction is incompatible with its AMR structure, it's likely incorrect and we should discourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (3) if the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the event prediction, we should reduce the magnitude of the gradients learned from the pseudo label. Motivated by this, we first design a transformation function \\( f^c \\) to project the correctness score \\( c_{ij} \\in [0,1] \\) into a range \\( [-1,1] \\) where -1 (or \\( c_{ij} = 0 \\)) indicates incompatible, 1 (or \\( c_{ij} = 1 \\)) means compatible, and 0 (or \\( c_{ij} = 0.5 \\)) means uncertain. Here, \\( f^c \\) is based on a linear mapping:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.582, + 0.384, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf ^ {c} (c _ {i j}) = 2 \\times c _ {i j} - 1\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.619, + 0.49, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then apply the compatibility scores as feedback to update the gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample during self-training:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.684, + 0.48, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {S T F}} = \\sum_ {i, j} f ^ {c} \\left(c _ {i j}\\right) \\cdot \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} \\left(\\tilde {W}, \\left(\\tilde {\\tau} _ {i}, \\tilde {l} _ {\\tau_ {i}}, \\tilde {a} _ {i j}, \\tilde {\\varepsilon} _ {j}\\right); \\theta\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.738, + 0.491, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To improve the efficiency of self-training, we update the event extraction model on every minibatch, and to avoid the model diverging, we combine the supervised training and self-training, so the overall loss for STF is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.234, + 0.835, + 0.368, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {L} = \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} + \\beta \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {S T F}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\beta\\) is the combining ratio, \\(\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{E}}\\) is computed on the labeled dataset \\(\\mathcal{X}_L\\) and \\(\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{STF}}\\) is computed on the pseudo-labeled instances from \\(\\mathcal{X}_u\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.084, + 0.726, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experimental Setups" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.111, + 0.885, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For evaluation, we consider two base event extraction models: OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) due to their superior performance on event extraction and publicly available source code, and demonstrate the effectiveness of STF on three benchmark datasets: ACE05-E, ACE05-\\(\\mathbf{E}^{+}\\) and ERE-EN, with the same evaluation metrics following previous studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022)\\(^{13}\\). To show the generalizability of STF, we explore two unlabeled corpora for self-training: (1) AMR 3.0 (Knight et al., 2021) which originally contains 55,635 sentences in the training set while each sentence is associated with a manually annotated AMR graph. (2) New York Times Annotated Corpus (NYT) contains over 1.8 million articles that were published between 1987 to 2007. We randomly sample 55,635 sentences\\(^{14}\\) from articles published in 2004. Because NYT dataset does not have AMR annotations, we run a pre-trained AMR parser (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate system AMR parsing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.465, + 0.885, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides taking the recent state-of-the-art event extraction studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022)\\(^{15}\\) as baselines, we also compare our proposed STF with two other training strategies: (1) vanilla Self-Training (Rosenberg et al., 2005) which consists of two stages similar as STF but in the second stage takes each new event prediction from the unlabeled data with a probability higher than 0.9 based on the base event extraction model as a pseudo label and combines them with the labeled data to re-train the event extraction model; and (2) Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning (GradLRE) (Hu et al., 2021b). GradLRE encourages the gradients computed on the pseudo-labeled data to imitate the gradients computed on the labeled data by using the cosine distance between the two sources of gradients as a reward to perform policy gradi" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.796, + 0.884, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13The detailed statistics of ACE05-E, ACE05- \\(\\mathbf{E}^{+}\\) , and EREEN are shown in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.821, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14To show the effect of unlabeled dataset vs labeled dataset, we sample the same number of the unlabeled sentences as AMR 3.0" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.857, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15The scores reported in (Nguyen et al., 2022) are not comparable in the table 3, as their results are not averaged across random seeds. We tried to report their averaged performance by running their model ourselves by contacting the authors, however, their code is publicly unavailable." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.796, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10425" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ent reinforcement learning (Sutton et al., 1999). GradLRE showed improvements over other selftraining methods on low-resource relation extraction which is a similar task to argument role classification. Appendix C describes the training details for both baselines and our approach." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.195, + 0.347, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.221, + 0.388, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Evaluation of Scoring Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.243, + 0.49, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first evaluate the performance of the scoring model by measuring how well it distinguishes the correct and incorrect argument role predictions from an event extraction model. Specifically, we compute event predictions by running a fully trained event extraction model (i.e., OneIE or AMR-IE) on the validation and test sets of the three benchmark datasets. Based on the gold event annotations, we create a gold binary label (correct or incorrect) for each argument role prediction to indicate its correctness. For each event prediction, we pass it along with the corresponding AMR graph of the source sentence into the scoring model. If the correctness16 predicted by the scoring model agrees with the gold binary label, we treat it as a true prediction for scoring model, otherwise, a false prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.517, + 0.49, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To examine the impact of leveraging AMR in scoring model performance, we develop a baseline scoring model that shares the same structure with our proposed scoring model except that it does not take an AMR graph as an input. Specifically, the baseline scoring model just takes the event mention (triggers, arguments and argument labels) in order to measure the compatibility score. The baseline scoring model is essentially an ablation of our scoring model where the AMR path is absent. As shown in Table 2, the performance of our scoring model outperforms the baseline scoring model by 1.4-1.7 F-score on the test sets, demonstrating the effectiveness of AMR graph in characterizing the correctness of each event prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 1, we can observe that the semantics and structure of AMR paths can be easily mapped to argument role types. Sometimes, the even triggers are far from their arguments in plain text, but the AMR paths between them is short and informative. Another observation is that the scoring model tends to assign positive scores to argument roles that are" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "more compatible with the AMR paths, although sometimes the scores for the gold argument roles are not the highest." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.149, + 0.862, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Evaluation of STF on Event Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.172, + 0.885, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 shows the event extraction results of both our approach and strong baselines\\(^{17}\\). For clarity, in the rest of the section, we refer to our proposed framework as \\(\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}\\) and our proposed framework with the baseline scoring model as \\(\\mathrm{STF_{W/O\\_AMR}}\\). We can see that, both \\(\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{STF_{W/O\\_AMR}}\\) improve the performance of the event extraction models on argument role classification while the vanilla self-training and GradLRE barely work, demonstrating the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback to the pseudo labels during self-training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.885, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further analyze the reasons in terms of why the vanilla self-training and GradLRE do not work and notice that: due to the data scarcity, the base event extraction model (i.e., OneIE) performs poorly on many argument roles (lower than \\(40\\%\\) F-score). Thus, the event predictions on unlabeled corpora can be very noisy and inaccurate. The model suffers from confirmation bias (Tarvainen and Valpola, 2017; Arazo et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2020): it accumulates errors and diverges when it's iteratively trained on such noisy pseudo labeled examples during self-training. In addition, we also notice that with self-training, the event extraction model becomes overconfident about its predictions. We check the averaged probability of all the argument role predictions on the unlabeled dataset which is 0.93. In such case, it is clear that the predicted probability can not faithfully reflect the correctness of the predictions, which is referred as the calibration error (Guo et al., 2017; Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana, 2005). Thus, the self-training process which relies on overconfident prediction can become highly biased and diverge from the initial baseline model. In GradLRE, the quality of the reward is highly depend on the averaged gradient direction computed during the supervised training process. However, due to the scarcity of the training data, the stored gradient direction can be unreliable. In addition, the gradient computed on the pseudo-labeled dataset with high reward is used to update the average gradient direction, which can introduce noises into the reward function. As seen" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "17We show the variance of Base OneIE and \\(+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}\\) on three datasets in Appendix D." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.88, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "16When the correctness score \\( c^{ij} > 0.5 \\) computed by the scoring model, the predicted label is correct, otherwise, incorrect." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10426" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Tell that to the family of Margaret Hassan, the school teacher who was brutally tortured and then slaughtered by these same guys, they aren't so bad are they Chris Matthews?AMR Path: [slaughtered, ARG1, teacher, MODIFIER, Margaret Hassan] \nPred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.99 \nGold Arg: Victim; Compatibility Score: 0.99
It is irritating enough to get sued by Sam Sloan; imagine how irritating it would be to get BEATEN by him because you have done something so egregious that a court is forced to agree with him.AMR Path: [sued, ARG0, Sam Sloan] \nPred Arg: Adjudicator; Compatibility Score: -0.99 \nGold Arg: Plaintiff; Compatibility Score: 0.67
Protests against the action aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were held in cities across Libya, Egypt and Lebanon, as well as in Amman, Damascus and the Gaza Strip.AMR Path: [Protests, ARG0, held, ARG1, were, PLACE, Amman] \nPred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.52 \nGold Arg: Place; Compatibility Score: 0.74
Meanwhile Blair arrived in Washington late Wednesday for two days of talks with Bush at the Camp David presidential retreat.AMR Path: [arrived, OTHER, talks, PLACE, retreat] \nPred Arg: Destination; Compatibility Score: -0.94 \nGold Arg: O; Compatibility Score: 0.31
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.308, + 0.244, + 0.688, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Qualitative Results of the compatibility scores." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.28, + 0.479, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Scoring w/o AMR87.485.987.986.982.883.1
Scoring w/ AMR88.287.488.888.684.484.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.349, + 0.489, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: The F-score \\((\\%)\\) of the scoring models on various datasets. Scoring w/o AMR is the baseline scoring model without using AMR path. Scoring w/ AMR is the scoring model we proposed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.434, + 0.489, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in Table 3, the best models of self-training and GradLRE are on par or worse than the baseline approach, and these approaches show the detrimental effects as they show a continuous decline of the performance as training proceeds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.516, + 0.489, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By considering AMR structure, \\(\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}\\) encourages the event extraction models to predict event structures that are more compatible with AMR graphs. This claim is supported by Table 4, which compares the compatibility scores between the model without STF (OneIE baseline) and one with STF (OneIE +STF) framework on the three benchmark datasets. The compatibility scores are measured by the AMR based scoring models. We can clearly see that the compatibility scores measured on OneIE \\(+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}\\) are much higher than the scores measured on base OneIE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lastly, we observe that \\(\\mathrm{OneIE + STF_{AMR}}\\) outperforms AMR-IE \\(^+\\) STFAMR, even when AMR-IE performs better than OneIE baseline without STF. We argue the reason is that even though \\(\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}\\) does not need AMR parsing at inference time, AMR-IE does require AMR graphs at inference time which causes it to suffer from potential errors in the AMR parsing. On the other hand, OneIE trained by \\(\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}\\) does not require AMR graphs at inference time, making it free from potential error propagation. Figure 2 shows more examples to illustrate how the feedback from AMR structures in STF helps to improve event predictions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.284, + 0.8, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Effect of Confidence Threshold" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.304, + 0.885, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intuitively, STF can leverage both certain (including compatible and incompatible) and uncertain pseudo labeled examples, as when the example is uncertain, the probability \\( c \\) predicted by the scoring model is close to 0.5 and thus \\( f^c(c) \\) is close to 0, making the gradients computed on this pseudolabeled example close to 0. To verify this claim, we conduct experiments with \\( \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}} \\) by using the probability \\( c \\) predicted by the scoring model to determine certain and uncertain pseudo labels and analyzing their effect to \\( \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}} \\). Note that we don't use the probability from the base event extraction model due to its calibration error (Guo et al., 2017)18. Specifically, we first select a threshold \\( s^{st} \\in \\{0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9\\} \\). For each pseudo example, if the probability \\( c \\) predicted by the scoring model is higher than \\( s^{st} \\) (indicating a confident positive prediction) or lower than \\( 1 - s^{st} \\) (indicating a confident negative prediction), we will add it for \\( \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}} \\). The higher the threshold \\( s^{st} \\), the most certain pseudo labels we can select for \\( \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}} \\). As Figure 3 shows, \\( \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}} \\) can even benefit from the less-confident pseudo labeled examples with threshold \\( s^{st} \\) around 0.6, demonstrating that it can make better use of most of the predicted events from the unlabeled corpus for self-training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.733, + 0.746, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Impact of AMR Parsing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.753, + 0.885, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "AMR annotations are very expensive and hard to obtain. To show the potential of \\(\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}\\) in the scenarios where gold AMR parsing is not available, we conduct experiments by leveraging the NYT 2004 corpus as the external unlabeled corpus with system generated AMR parsing for self-training. As shown in Table 5, with system-based AMR, STF can also improve the performance of base event extraction models on all three benchmark datasets," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.793, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "18See detailed explanations in Appendix ??" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10427" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.082, + 0.805, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Tri-CArg-CTri-CArg-CTri-CArg-C
DyGIE (Wadden et al., 2019)69.748.867.342.7--
BERT_QA(Arg (Du and Cardie, 2020)72.453.370.648.357.039.2
FourIE (Nguyen et al., 2021)75.458.073.357.557.948.6
Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021)71.953.871.854.459.448.3
DEGREE (Hsu et al., 2022)73.355.870.956.357.149.6
Query Extract (Wang et al., 2022)--73.655.160.450.4
UIE (Lu et al., 2022)73.454.8----
Base OneIE (Lin et al., 2020)74.057.473.457.260.249.8
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.057.273.857.360.149.4
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.657.473.557.460.550.3
+STFW/O_AMR74.457.973.857.660.451.0
+STFAMR (ours)75.058.973.459.060.652.0
Base AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021)74.457.773.457.260.450.5
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.257.473.457.160.150.2
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.457.873.357.460.350.5
+STFW/O_AMR74.358.073.557.660.551.1
+STFAMR (ours)74.558.573.658.260.451.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.35, + 0.884, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Test F1 scores of event trigger classification (Tri-C), and argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets. * denotes methods we re-implement to fit them into the event extraction task. Bold denotes the best performance in each local section and underline denotes the best global performance." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.397, + 0.861, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Sentence & Gold Event MentionsAMR PathBase OneIESTF
With marathon talks at the top world body failing late Thursday to reconcile French and Russian opposition to US-British war plans, the United States upped its military presence, deploying more missile-firing warships to the Red Sea. (Movement:Transport) deploying -> (Agent) -> United StatesARG0\ndeploying United StatesArg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: -1.0Arg Role:Agent\nCompatibility\nScore: 1.0
In Paris, the French media group said parent company chairman Jean - Rene Fourtou will replace Diller as chairman and chief executive of US unit. (Personnel:Start-Position) replace -> (Entity) -> unitand ARG2 Op Medium replace chairmanArg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.22Arg Role:Entity\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.93
In a verdict handed down on Saturday, the judge also ordered Ranjha to pay a fine of 50,000 rupees (about 870 US dollars), they said. (Justice:Fine) fine -> (Adjudicator) -> judgepay ARG1 ARG2 arg0 fine orderedArg Role:Entity\nCompatibility\nScore: -0.98Arg Role:Judiciary\nCompatibility\nScore: 1.0
The Daily Planet raised 3.5 million dollars (2.2 million US) in its initial public offering with one of the new 600 shareholders acquiring 1.0 million dollars worth of shares. (Transaction:Transfer-Money) acquiring -> (Other) -> shareholdersOther\nacquiring shareholdersArg Role:Buyer\nCompatibility\nScore: -1.0Arg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.72
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.615, + 0.884, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Qualitative results of STF. Examples are taken from the development and test splits of ACE05-E. The orange tokens denote event triggers and blue tokens denote arguments. The AMR paths are between event triggers and arguments. The Base OneIE and STF fields show the predicted argument roles from two methods respectively. All the predictions from STF are correct. The compatibility scores are computed by the same scoring model. Note that OneIE and STF do not use AMR graph at inference time and AMR graph is shown just to provide intuitions." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.697, + 0.484, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Base OneIE70.168.476.961.976.469.2
+ STFAMR72.270.880.264.078.075.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.775, + 0.489, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: The compatibility scores computed by scoring models on the development and test sets of the three benchmark datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and improve over the baseline scoring model without using AMR. The gap between STF with gold AMR and STF with system AMR is small, demonstrating that STF is more robust to the potential errors from AMR parsing." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.695, + 0.86, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ACE-EACE-E+ERE-EN
Base OneIE57.457.249.8
+ STF w/o AMR57.957.651.0
+ STF w/ sys_AMR58.258.151.4
+ STF w/ gold_AMR58.959.052.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.775, + 0.883, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Performance comparison between using gold AMR, system-labeled AMR, and not using AMR." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.814, + 0.667, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most prior studies have been focusing on learning supervised models (Ji and Grishman, 2008; McClosky et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Feng et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016; Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10428" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.085, + 0.424, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.226, + 0.49, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Performance change with different thresholds to select certain pseudo labeled examples for self-training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.286, + 0.49, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; wan; Nguyen et al., 2021) based on manually annotated event mentions. However, the performance of event extraction has been barely improved in recent years, and one of the main reasons lies in the data scarcity and imbalance of the existing event annotations. Several self-training and semi-supervised studies have been proposed to automatically enrich the event annotations. Huang and Riloff (2012) uses extraction patterns based on nouns that, by definition, play a specific role in an event, to automatically label more data. Li et al. (2014) proposes various event inference mechanisms to reveal additional missing event mentions. (Huang, 2020; Huang and Ji, 2020) propose semi-supervised learning to automatically induce new event types and their corresponding event mentions while the performance of old types is also improved. (Liao and Grishman, 2010, 2011b; Ferguson et al., 2018b) propose techniques to select a more relevant and informative corpus for self-training. All these studies cannot handle the noise introduced by the automatically labeled data properly. Compared with them, our STF framework leverages a scoring model to estimate the correctness of each pseudo-labeled example, which further guides the gradient learning of the event extraction model, thus it can efficiently mitigate the impact of the noisy pseudo-labeled examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-training has been studied for many years (Yarowsky, 1995; Riloff and Wiebe, 2003; Rosenberg et al., 2005) and widely adopted in many tasks including speech recognition (Kahn et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020), biomedical imaging (You et al., 2022a,b), parsing (McClosky et al., 2006; McClosky and Charniak, 2008), and pretraining (Du et al., 2021). Self-Training suffers from inaccurate pseudo labels (Arazo et al., 2020, 2019; Hu et al., 2021a) especially when the teacher" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "model is trained on insufficient and unbalanced datasets. To address this problem, (Pham et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021a; Hu et al., 2021a) propose to utilize the performance of the student model on the held-out labeled data as a Meta-Learning objective to update the teacher model or improve the pseudo-label generation process. Hu et al. (2021b) leverage the cosine distance between gradients computed on labeled data and pseudo-labeled data as feedback to guide the self-training process. (Mehta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2021) leverage the span of named entities as constraints to improve semi-supervised semantic role labeling and syntactic parsing, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.325, + 0.642, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.347, + 0.885, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose a self-training with feedback (STF) framework to overcome the data scarcity issue of the event extract task. The STF framework estimates the correctness of each pseudo event prediction based on its compatibility with the corresponding AMR structure, and takes the compatibility score as feedback to guide the learning of the event extraction model on each pseudo label during self-training. We conduct experiments on three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+, and ERE, and prove that STF is effective and general as it can improve any base event extraction models with significant gains. We further demonstrate that STF can improve event extraction models on large-scale unlabeled corpora even without high-quality AMR annotations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.619, + 0.615, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method utilizes the AMR annotations as additional training signals to alleviate the data scarcity problem in the event extraction task. In this problem setup, generally speaking, AMR annotations are more expensive than event extraction annotations. Nonetheless, in reality, the AMR dataset is much bigger than any existing event extraction dataset, and AMR parsers usually have higher performance than event extraction models. Leveraging existing resources to improve event extraction without requiring additional cost is a feasible and practical direction. Our work has demonstrated the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback from AMR to improve event argument extraction. However, it's still under-explored what additional information and tasks can be leveraged as feedback to improve trigger detection." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10429" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We did not have quantitative results for the alignment between AMR and event graphs. The authors randomly sampled 50 event graphs from ACE05-E and found 41 are aligned with their AMR graphs based on human judgment. In future work, more systematic studies should be conducted to evaluate the alignment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.199, + 0.49, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There is a large gap between the validation and testing datasets in terms of label distribution on ACE05-E and ACE05-E+. We observe that performance improvement on the validation set sometimes leads to performance decreasing on the test set. Both the validation and test dataset miss certain labels for event trigger types and argument role types. The annotations in the training set, validation set, and test set are scarce and highly unbalanced, which causes the low performance on trained models. We argue that a large-scale more balanced benchmark dataset in the event extraction domain can lead to more solid conclusions and facilitate research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.434, + 0.279, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.459, + 0.49, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers and area chair for their valuable time and constructive comments. This research is based upon work supported by the Amazon Research Award. Jay-Yoon Lee was supported in part by the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.582, + 0.214, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2019. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. CoRR, abs/1908.02983." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.69, + 0.49, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Arazo, Diego Ortega, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2020. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, IJCNN 2020, Glasgow, United Kingdom, July 19-24, 2020, pages 1-8. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.778, + 0.49, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ramón Fernandez Astudillo, Miguel Ballesteros, Tahira Naseem, Austin Blodgett, and Radu Florian. 2020. Transition-based parsing with stack-transformers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 1001-1007. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, LAW-ID@ACL 2013, August 8-9, 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, pages 178-186. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.187, + 0.885, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Y. Chen, L. Xu, K. Liu, D. Zeng, and J. Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multi-pooling convolutional neural networks. In Proc. ACL2015." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.236, + 0.883, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zheng Chen and Heng Ji. 2009. Can one language bootstrap the other: a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2009 Workshop on Semi-Supervised Learning for Natural Language Processing, pages 66-74." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.31, + 0.885, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shumin Deng, Ningyu Zhang, Luoqiu Li, Chen Hui, Tou Huaixiao, Mosha Chen, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Ontoed: Low-resource event detection with ontology embedding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2828-2839." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.424, + 0.885, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.563, + 0.885, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingfei Du, Edouard Grave, Belize Gunel, Vishrav Chaudhary, Onur Celebi, Michael Auli, Veselin Stoyanov, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Self-training improves pre-training for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5408-5418. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.703, + 0.883, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinya Du and Claire Cardie. 2020. Event extraction by answering (almost) natural questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 671-683, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.778, + 0.883, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaocheng Feng, Lifu Huang, Duyu Tang, Bing Qin, Heng Ji, and Ting Liu. 2016. A language-independent neural network for event detection. In The 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page 66." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018a. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10430" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.123, + 0.49, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S. Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018b. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.252, + 0.49, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1321-1330. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.354, + 0.49, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I-Hung Hsu, Kuan-Hao Huang, Elizabeth Boschee, Scott Miller, Prem Natarajan, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. DEGREE: A data-efficient generation-based event extraction model. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1890-1908. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.496, + 0.49, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Fukun Ma, Chenyao Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021a. Semi-supervised relation extraction via incremental meta self-training. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 487-496. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Yawen Yang, Xiaohe Li, Li Lin, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021b. Gradient imitation reinforcement learning for low resource relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 2737-2746. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.726, + 0.486, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifu Huang. 2020. Cold-start universal information extraction. Ph.D. thesis." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.49, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifu Huang, Taylor Cassidy, Xiaocheng Feng, Heng Ji, Clare Voss, Jiawei Han, and Avirup Sil. 2016. Liberal event extraction and event schema induction. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 258-268." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifu Huang and Heng Ji. 2020. Semi-supervised new event type induction and event detection. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 718-724." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.174, + 0.885, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruihong Huang and Ellen Riloff. 2012. Bootstrapped training of event extraction classifiers. In EACL 2012, 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, April 23-27, 2012, pages 286-295. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Heng Ji and Ralph Grishman. 2008. Refining event extraction through cross-document inference. In Proceedings of ACL-08: Hlt, pages 254-262." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.311, + 0.885, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lu Jiang, Zhengyuan Zhou, Thomas Leung, Li-Jia Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Mentornet: Learning data-driven curriculum for very deep neural networks on corrupted labels. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2309-2318. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.426, + 0.885, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Kahn, Ann Lee, and Awni Hannun. 2020. Self-training for end-to-end speech recognition. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7084-7088." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.501, + 0.885, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Knight, Bianca Badarau, Laura Baranescu, Claire Bonial, Madalina Bardocz, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Daniel Marcu, Martha Palmer, Tim O'Gorman, et al. 2021. Abstract meaning representation (amr) annotation release 3.0." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.576, + 0.885, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In ICML." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.637, + 0.885, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peifeng Li, Qiaoming Zhu, and Guodong Zhou. 2014. Employing event inference to improve semi-supervised chinese event extraction. In COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference: Technical Papers, August 23-29, 2014, Dublin, Ireland, pages 2161-2171. ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.738, + 0.885, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qi Li, Heng Ji, and Liang Huang. 2013. Joint event extraction via structured prediction with global features. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2013, 4-9 August 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 73-82. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2010. Filtered ranking for bootstrapping in event extraction. In COLING 2010, 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China, pages 680-688. Tsinghua University Press." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10431" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011a. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 260-265." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.178, + 0.487, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011b. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? A case study on event extraction. In The 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Conference, 19-24 June, 2011, Portland, Oregon, USA - Short Papers, pages 260-265. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.297, + 0.487, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.403, + 0.487, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.535, + 0.487, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.615, + 0.487, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2Event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2795–2806, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.759, + 0.487, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D. McClosky, M. Surdeanu, and C. D. Manning. 2011. Event extraction as dependency parsing. In ACL, pages 1626-1635." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David McClosky and Eugene Charniak. 2008. Self-training for biomedical parsing. In ACL 2008, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 15-20, 2008, Columbus, Ohio, USA, Short Papers, pages 101-104. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.882, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David McClosky, Eugene Charniak, and Mark Johnson. 2006. Effective self-training for parsing. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, June 4-9, 2006, New York, New York, USA. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.278, + 0.882, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Jay Yoon Lee, and Jaime G. Carbonell. 2018. Towards semi-supervised learning for deep semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4958-4963. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.38, + 0.882, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minh Van Nguyen, Viet Lai, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2021. Cross-task instance representation interactions and label dependencies for joint information extraction with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 27-38. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.509, + 0.882, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minh Van Nguyen, Bonan Min, Franck Dernoncourt, and Thien Nguyen. 2022. Joint extraction of entities, relations, and events via modeling inter-instance and inter-label dependencies. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4363-4374, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.638, + 0.882, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thien Huu Nguyen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ralph Grishman. 2016. Joint event extraction via recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 300-309." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.727, + 0.882, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. 2005. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. pages 625-632." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.777, + 0.882, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel S. Park, Yu Zhang, Ye Jia, Wei Han, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Bo Li, Yonghui Wu, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Improved noisy student training for automatic speech recognition. CoRR, abs/2005.09629." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.841, + 0.882, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hieu Pham, Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Meta pseudo labels. CoRR, abs/2003.10580." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.878, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sudha Rao, Daniel Marcu, Kevin Knight, and Hal Daumé III. 2017. Biomedical event extraction using Abstract Meaning Representation. In BioNLP 2017," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10432" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "pages 126-135, Vancouver, Canada., Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.124, + 0.49, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ellen Riloff and Janyce Wiebe. 2003. Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2003, Sapporo, Japan, July 11-12, 2003." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.2, + 0.49, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chuck Rosenberg, Martial Hebert, and Henry Schneiderman. 2005. Semi-supervised self-training of object detection models. In 7th IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision / IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing (WACV/MOTION 2005), 5-7 January 2005, Breckenridge, CO, USA, pages 29-36. IEEE Computer Society." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.303, + 0.49, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard S. Sutton, David A. McAllester, Satinder Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 1999. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12, [NIPS Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, November 29 - December 4, 1999], pages 1057-1063. The MIT Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.405, + 0.489, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. 2017. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 1195-1204." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.507, + 0.489, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. CoRR, abs/1706.03762." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.571, + 0.49, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5783-5788. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.699, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sijia Wang, Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Lichao Sun, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Query and extract: Refining event extraction as type-oriented binary decoding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 169-182. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.789, + 0.49, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaqing Wang, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Haoda Chu, Yuancheng Tu, Ming Wu, Jing Gao, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021a. Meta self-training for few-shot neural sequence labeling. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 1737-1747. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.891, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziqi Wang, Xiaozhi Wang, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Lei Hou, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Zhou." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2021b. CLEVE: contrastive pre-training for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6283-6297. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.204, + 0.884, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.256, + 0.885, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay-Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 4818-4831. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Yarowsky. 1995. Unsupervised word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 26-30 June 1995, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, Proceedings, pages 189-196. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers / ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.492, + 0.884, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Fenglin Liu, Haoran Su, Xiaoran Zhang, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022a. Mine your own anatomy: Revisiting medical image segmentation with extremely limited labels. CoRR, abs/2209.13476." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.571, + 0.884, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022b. Bootstrapping semi-supervised medical image segmentation with anatomical-aware contrastive distillation. CoRR, abs/2206.02307." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.649, + 0.885, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zixuan Zhang and Heng Ji. 2021. Abstract meaning representation guided graph encoding and decoding for joint information extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 39-49. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.771, + 0.775, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Groups of AMR Relations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.799, + 0.884, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7 shows the new categories and labels of AMR relations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.845, + 0.764, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B The Statistics of Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7 shows the statistics of the three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+ and ERE-EN." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10433" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Group LabelAMR Relations
ARG0ARG0
ARG1ARG1
ARG2ARG2
ARG3ARG3
ARG4ARG4
Destinationdestination
Sourcesource
Instrumentinstrument
Beneficiarybeneficiary
Prep rolesrole starts with prep
Op rolesrole start with op
Entity rolewiki, name
Arg-X roleARG5, ARG6, ARG7 ARG8, ARG9
Place rolelocation, path, direction
Medium rolemanner, poss, medium, topic
Modifier roledomain, mod, example
Part-whole rolepart, consist, subevent, subset
Time rolecalendar, century, day, dayperiod, decade, era, month, quarter, season,timezone, weekday, year, year2, time
Otherspurpose, li, quant, polarity, condition, extent, degree, cnt1, cnt2, ARG5, cnt3, concession, ord, unit, mode, value, frequency, polite, age, accompanier, cnt4, cnt10, cnt5, cnt6, cnt7, cnt8, cnt9, cnt11, scale, conj-as-if, rel
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.478, + 0.487, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: The 19 groups of the AMR relations used in our paper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.533, + 0.295, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Training Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.56, + 0.489, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For all experiments, we use Roberta-large as the language model which has 355M parameters. We train all of our models on a single A100 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.619, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Base OneIE We follow the same training process as (Lin et al., 2020) to train the OneIE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters the same as (Lin et al., 2020). For each dataset we train 3 OneIE models and report the averaged performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Base AMR-IE We follow the same training process as (Zhang and Ji, 2021) to train the AMR-IE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters exactly the same as (Zhang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and Ji, 2021). For each dataset we train 3 AMR-IE models and report the averaged performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.129, + 0.885, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Model We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the score model for 60 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-4 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 10. The scoring model contains two self-attention layers. We train 3 scoring models and reported the averaged performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.269, + 0.885, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Training For self-training we use SGD as optimizer and continue to train the converged base OneIE model for 30 epochs with batch size 12, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters except the CRF layers and global features which are frozen. For self-training, we use 0.9 as the threshold to select the confident predictions as pseudo-labeled instances. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.458, + 0.884, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning For GradLRE, we use the BertAdam as the optimizer with batch size 16, learning rate 1e-5 and weight decay 1e-5 for the language encoder and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 1e-3 for other parameters to first train OneIE model for 60 epochs. The standard gradient direction vector is computed by averaging the gradient vector on each optimization step. Then following the same training process in the original paper, we perform 10 more epochs of Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning, and set the threshold for high reward as 0.5. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation For STF, we first train the OneIE model on the labeled dataset for 10 epochs and continue to train it on the mixture of unlabeled data and labeled dataset for 70 more epochs with batch size 10, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters. We leverage a linear scheduler to compute the value for the loss combining ratio \\(\\beta\\). The value of \\(\\beta\\) is computed as \\(\\frac{\\text{epoch}}{70}\\). For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance. For model selection, we propose a new method called Compatibility-Score Based Model" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10434" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.083, + 0.772, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# Sent17,17292383219,24090267614,7361,2091,163
# Entities29,0062,4513,01747,5253,4223,67338,8643,3203,291
# Events4,2024504034,4194684246,208525551
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.277, + 0.184, + 0.719, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: The statistics of the three benchmarks used in our paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.224, + 0.49, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Selection which is discussed in the following paragraph." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.265, + 0.49, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The data scarcity problem not only appears in the training data of ACE-05, ACE-05+ and ERE-EN but appears in the development set. For example, in ACE-05, the development set only contains only 603 labeled argument roles for 22 argument role classes and 7 argument role classes have lees than 10 instances. To alleviate this problem, we propose to leverage part of the large-scale unlabeled dataset as a held-out development set. At the end of each epoch, instead of evaluating the event extraction model on the development set, we run the event extraction model on the unlabeled held-out development set to make event predictions and run the scoring model on the event predictions to compute compatibility scores. We utilize the averaged compatibility scores computed on all instances in the unlabeled held-out development datasets as the model selection criteria. We argue this is another application of the scoring model since its goal is to evaluate the correctness of event predictions. The size of the unlabeled held-out development set is 2,000." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.646, + 0.47, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Results of Base OneIE and \\(+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.49, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show the F1 scores of Base OneIE and \\(+ \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}\\) on three benchmark datasets with variances denoted. As one can see that Base OneIE and \\(+ \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}\\) have similar variances on all three datasets except ACE05-E+. We leave how to reduce the variance of argument role classification to future work." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.793, + 0.484, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Arg-CArg-CArg-C
Base OneIE57.4 ±1.2357.2 ±0.3249.8 ±0.45
+STFAMR (ours)58.9 ±1.2859.0 ±1.0352.0 ±0.40
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.864, + 0.487, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Test F1 scores of argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10435" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.171, + 0.554, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We are not aware of potential risks in our work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.212, + 0.697, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.256, + 0.67, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.697, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.299, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.322, + 0.147, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.347, + 0.531, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We don't introduce new artifacts in the paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? not applicable" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? \nwe didn't collect data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? not applicable" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.658, + 0.882, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix B" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.347, + 0.882, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.789, + 0.147, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? appendix C" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10436" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? \nappendix C" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.88, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? \nappendix C" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.88, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? not applicable" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.4, + 0.88, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.476, + 0.88, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.593, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10437" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd8f2747b282a84065946fa85d2e5ce0258ec165 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/f44688f3-20a7-4c11-be17-a7fc58ba20ed_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e193160f3f01227540e17c1157ec5bb75cb9dafb5bc099d26985b02750776dd3 +size 710068 diff --git a/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/full.md b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..387510557212b9f516986e7364982a8f200e976e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,397 @@ +# Learning from a Friend: Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation + +Zhiyang Xu\* Jay-Yoon Lee\* Lifu Huang\* + +$\spadesuit$ Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech + +*Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University + +{zhiyangx, lifuh}@vt.edu + +lee.jayyoon@snu.ac.kr + +# Abstract + +Data scarcity has been the main factor that hinders the progress of event extraction. To overcome this issue, we propose a Self-Training with Feedback (STF) framework that leverages the large-scale unlabeled data and acquires feedback for each new event prediction from the unlabeled data by comparing it to the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graph of the same sentence. Specifically, STF consists of (1) a base event extraction model trained on existing event annotations and then applied to large-scale unlabeled corpora to predict new event mentions as pseudo training samples, and (2) a novel scoring model that takes in each new predicted event trigger, an argument, its argument role, as well as their paths in the AMR graph to estimate a compatibility score indicating the correctness of the pseudo label. The compatibility scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the model learning on the pseudo labels during self-training. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05- $\mathbf{E}^{+}$ , and ERE, demonstrate the effectiveness of the STF framework on event extraction, especially event argument extraction, with significant performance gain over the base event extraction models and strong baselines. Our experimental analysis further shows that STF is a generic framework as it can be applied to improve most, if not all, event extraction models by leveraging large-scale unlabeled data, even when high-quality AMR graph annotations are not available. $^{1}$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Event extraction (EE), which aims to identify and classify event triggers and arguments, has been a long-standing challenging problem in natural language processing. Despite the large performance leap brought by advances in deep learning, recent + +studies (Deng et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) have shown that the data scarcity of existing event annotations has been the major issue that hinders the progress of EE. For example, in ACE-05 $^{2}$ , one of the most popular event extraction benchmark datasets, 10 of the 33 event types have less than 80 annotations. However, creating event annotations is extremely expensive and time-consuming, e.g., it takes several linguists over one year to annotate 500 documents with about 5000 event mentions for ACE-05. + +To overcome the data scarcity issue of EE, previous studies (Chen and Ji, 2009; Liao and Grishman, 2011a; Ferguson et al., 2018a) develop self-training methods that allow the trained EE model to learn further by regarding its own predictions on large-scale unlabeled corpora as pseudo labels. However, simply adding the high-confidence event predictions to the training set inevitably introduces noises (Liu et al., 2021; Arazo et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2018), especially given that the current state-of-the-art performance of event argument extraction is still less than $60\%$ F-score. To tackle this challenge, we introduce a Self-Training with Feedback framework, named STF, which consists of an event extraction model that is firstly trained on the existing event annotations and then continually updated on the unlabeled corpus with self-training, and a scoring model that is to evaluate the correctness of the new event predictions (pseudo labels) from the unlabeled corpus, and the scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the learning of the event extraction model on the pseudo labels during self-training, inspired by the REINFORCE algorithms (Williams, 1992). + +Specifically, the event extraction model of our STF framework can be based on any state-of-the-art architecture. In this paper, we choose OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021), due + +to their superior performance and publicly available source code. The scoring model leverages the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) which has been proven to be able to provide rich semantic and structural signals to map AMR structures to event predictions (Huang et al., 2016, 2018; Wang et al., 2021b) and thus their compatibility can indicate the correctness of each event prediction. The scoring model is a self-attention network that takes in a predicted event trigger, a candidate argument and its argument role, as well as their path in the AMR graph of the whole sentence, and computes a score ranging in $[-1, 1]$ based on the compatibility between the AMR and the predicted event structure: -1 means incompatible, 1 means compatible, and 0 means uncertain. Inspired by the REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992), we multiply the compatibility scores and the gradient of the EE model computed on the pseudo event labels during self-training, so as to (1) encourage the event extraction model to follow the gradient and hence maximize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is compatible with the AMR structure; (2) negate the gradient and minimize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is incompatible with the AMR structure; and (3) reduce the magnitude of the gradient when the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the pseudo label. + +We take AMR $3.0^{3}$ and part of the New York Times (NYT) 2004 corpus $^{4}$ as additional unlabeled corpora to enhance the event extraction model with STF, and evaluate the event extraction performance on three public benchmark datasets: ACE05-E $^{5}$ , ACE05-E $^{+6}$ , and ERE-EN $^{7}$ . The experimental results demonstrate that: (1) the vanilla self-training barely improves event extraction due to the noise introduced by the pseudo examples, while the proposed STF framework leverages the compatibility scores from the scoring model as feedback and thus makes more robust and efficient use of the pseudo labels; (2) STF is a generic framework and can be applied to improve most, if not all, of the event extraction models optimized by gradient descent algorithm and achieves significant improvement over the base event extraction models and strong baselines on event argument extraction on the three public benchmark datasets; (3) By exploiting dif + +ferent unlabeled corpora with gold or system-based AMR parsing, STF always improves the base event extraction models, demonstrating that it can work with various qualities of AMR parsing. Notably, different from previous studies (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) that require high-quality AMR graphs as input to the model during both training and inference, STF does not require any AMR graphs during inference, making it more computationally efficient and free from the potential errors propagated from AMR parsing. + +# 2 STF for Event Extraction + +The event extraction task consists of three subtasks: event detection, argument identification and argument role classification. Given an input sentence $W = [w_{1}, w_{2}, \dots, w_{N}]$ , event detection aims to identify the span of an event trigger $\tau_{i}$ in $W$ and assign a label $l_{\tau_{i}} \in \mathcal{T}$ where $\mathcal{T}$ denotes the set of target event types. Argument identification aims to find the span of an argument $\varepsilon_{j}$ in $W$ , and argument role classification further predicts a role $\alpha_{ij} \in \mathcal{A}$ that the argument $\varepsilon_{j}$ plays in an event $\tau_{i}$ given the set of target argument roles $\mathcal{A}$ . + +Figure 1 shows the overview of our STF framework which consists of two training stages. At the first stage, a base event extraction model (Section 2.1) is trained on a labeled dataset. At the second stage, we apply the trained event extraction model to an unlabeled corpus to predict new event mentions. Instead of directly taking the new event predictions as pseudo training examples like the vanilla self-training, we propose a novel scoring model (Section 2.2) to estimate the correctness of each event prediction by measuring its compatibility to the corresponding AMR graph, and then take both event predictions and their compatibility scores to continue to train the base event extraction model while the scores update the gradient computed on pseudo labels (Section 2.3). After the training of the second stage, we get a new event extraction model and evaluate it on the test set. + +# 2.1 Base Event Extraction Model + +Our proposed framework can be applied to most, if not all, event extraction models. We select OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) as base models given their state-of-the-art performance on the event extraction task and publicly available source code. Next, we briefly describe the common architectures in the two models + +![](images/6aa067a9242a8c6d06ccec8e4dc601b8f4eff17cab6c438a71f4e9d92e208bf3.jpg) +Figure 1: The overall framework of STF (We omit the first stage of STF.). Given an unlabeled sentence $\tilde{W}$ : (1) run an event extraction model to compute event predictions and an AMR parser to parse it into an AMR graph; (2) map the predicted trigger and argument to corresponding nodes in the AMR graph, find their AMR path and combine it with the predicted event type and argument role into a new sequence (Life:Die, killed, ARG0, commands, ARG0, PLACE, Iraq, Other); (3) feed the sequence into the scoring model to compute a compatibility score; (4) leverage the pseudo label and compatibility score to further update the event extraction model. + +and refer readers to the original papers for more details. OneIE and AMR-IE perform event extraction in four8 steps. First, a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) computes the contextual representations $\mathbf{W}$ for an input sentence $W$ . Second, two identification layers take in the contextual representations $\mathbf{W}$ . One identifies the spans of event triggers and the other identifies the spans of arguments (i.e., entities). Both of them are based on a linear classification layer followed by a CRF layer (Lafferty et al., 2001) to capture the dependencies between predicted tags. They are optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of the gold-standard tag path, which is denoted as $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{Tri\_I}}$ and $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{Arg\_I}}$ for trigger and argument identification, respectively. Third, for each trigger or argument candidate, we compute its representation by averaging the token representations within the whole identified span. Each trigger representation is fed into a classification layer to predict its type by minimizing the cross-entropy classification loss $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{Tri\_C}}$ . Each pair of trigger and argument representations are concatenated and fed into another classification layer to predict the argument role, which is also optimized by the cross-entropy loss $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{Arg\_C}}$ . Finally, both OneIE and AMR-IE learn an additional global feature vector to capture the interactions across sub-tasks (e.g., a $LOC$ entity is impossible to be the Attacker of an Attack event) + +and instances (e.g., the Defendant of a Sentence event can also be an Agent of a Die event). During training, a global feature score is computed for the predicted information graph and the gold annotation, respectively, from their global feature vectors. The training objective is to minimize the gap between these two global feature scores, denoted as $\mathbf{L}^G$ . Thus, the overall loss for the base event extraction model is: + +$$ +\mathbf {L} ^ {\mathrm {E}} = \mathbf {L} ^ {\text {T r i} _ {-} \mathrm {I}} + \mathbf {L} ^ {\text {A r g} _ {-} \mathrm {I}} + \mathbf {L} ^ {\text {T r i} _ {-} \mathrm {C}} + \mathbf {L} ^ {\text {A r g} _ {-} \mathrm {C}} + \mathbf {L} ^ {G}, +$$ + +As the first stage of our STF framework, we optimize the base event extraction model on labeled event mentions $\mathcal{X}_L$ based on $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{E}}$ and the trained model will later be used to predict new event mentions for self-training. + +# 2.2 Scoring Model + +At the second stage of STF, we aim to further improve the event extraction model by taking the event mentions predicted from an external unlabeled corpus $\mathcal{X}_u$ as pseudo samples for self-training. To avoid the noise contained in the pseudo samples, we propose a scoring model that can evaluate the correctness of each event prediction. Our scoring model takes AMR graph as a reference motivated by the observation that an event structure usually shares similar semantics and network topology as the AMR graph of the same sentence, thus their compatibility can be used to measure the correctness of each event structure. This observation + +has also been discussed and shown effective in previous studies (Rao et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021). However, previous studies directly take AMR graphs as input to the extraction model and thus require AMR graphs during both training and inference, making their performance highly dependent on the quality of AMR parsing. Different from them, our proposed STF only takes AMR graphs during reference to measure the correctness of event predictions during self-training, making it free from the potential errors propagation from AMR parsing during inference. + +Given a sentence $\tilde{W} \in \mathcal{X}_u$ from the unlabeled corpus and a predicted trigger $\tilde{\tau}_i$ and its argument $\tilde{\varepsilon}_j$ from $\tilde{W}$ , we aim to estimate a correctness score for each pair of the trigger and argument prediction based on its compatibility with their path in the AMR graph9. Thus, we first apply the state-of-the-art AMR parsing tool (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate an AMR graph for $\tilde{W}$ : $G = (V,E)$ , $E = \{(v_i,e_{ij},v_j)|e_{ij} \in \mathcal{R}\}$ . We follow (Huang et al., 2016; Zhang and Ji, 2021) and group the original set of AMR relations into 19 categories10, thus $e_{ij}$ denotes a particular relation category and $\mathcal{R}$ denotes the set of AMR relation categories. Then, we identify the $v_i$ , $v_j$ from AMR graph $G$ as the corresponding node of $\tilde{\tau}_i$ , $\tilde{\varepsilon}_j$ , by node alignment following Zhang and Ji (2021). Then, we utilize the Breadth First Search to find the shortest path $p_{i,j}$ that connects and includes, $v_i$ and $v_j$ in $G$ . If there is no path between $v_i$ and $v_j$ , we add a new edge to connect them and assign other as the relation. + +Given a predicted trigger $\tilde{\tau}_i$ and its type $\tilde{l}_{\tau_i}$ , a predicted argument $\tilde{\varepsilon}_j$ and its argument role $\tilde{\alpha}_{ij}$ , the scoring model estimates their correctness by taking $[\tilde{l}_{\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \tilde{\alpha}_{ij}]$ as input and outputs a compatibility score. As Figure 1 shows, it consists of a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) to encode the sentence $\tilde{W}$ and obtain the contextual representations for the tokens11, which are then used to initialize the representation of each node in $p_{ij}$ based on the alignment between the input tokens and the nodes in AMR graph following Zhang and Ji (2021). We draw edge representations from the AMR relation embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}^{rel}$ and com + +bine them with node representations to form $\mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}$ , a representation for path $p_{ij}$ . We also get an event type representation $\mathbf{h}_{\tau_i}$ for $\tilde{l}_{\tau_i}$ from the event-type embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}^{tri}$ and an argument role representation $\mathbf{h}_{\alpha_{ij}}$ for $\tilde{\alpha}_{ij}$ from the argument role embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}^{arg}$ . Here, $\mathbf{E}^{rel}$ , $\mathbf{E}^{tri}$ , and $\mathbf{E}^{arg}$ are all randomly initialized and will be optimized during training. Finally, we obtain the initial representations $\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init} = [\mathbf{h}_{\tau_i}, \mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}, \mathbf{h}_{\alpha_{ij}}]$ for the sequence $[\tilde{l}_{\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \tilde{\alpha}_{ij}]$ . + +To estimate the compatibility between the event trigger and argument prediction and their path in the AMR graph, we apply multi-layer self-attention (Vaswani et al., 2017) over the joint representation of the AMR path and the event prediction $\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}$ to learn better contextual representations for the sequence $[\tilde{l}_{\tau_i},p_{ij},\tilde{\alpha}_{ij}]$ and we add the position embedding $\mathbf{E}^{pos}$ to $\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}$ before feed it into the self-attention layers: + +$$ +\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {f i n a l} = s e l f - a t t e n t i o n (\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {i n i t}) \times M, +$$ + +where $M$ denotes the number of attention layers. + +Finally, we compute an overall vector representation $\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{ij}^{final}$ from $\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{final}$ via average-pooling and feed it into a linear-layer and a Sigmoid function to compute a probability $c_{ij}$ , indicating the correctness of the predicted event trigger and argument. We optimize the scoring model based on the binary cross-entropy objective: + +$$ +\mathbf {L} ^ {\text {S c o r e}} = \operatorname {B C E} \left(y _ {i j}, c _ {i j}; \psi\right), +$$ + +where $y_{ij} \in (0,1)$ is a binary label that indicates the argument role is correct ( $y_{ij} = 1$ ) or not ( $y_{ij} = 0$ ). The parameters of the scoring model. During training, we have gold triggers and arguments as positive training instances and we swap the argument roles in positive training instances with randomly sampled incorrect labels to create negative training instances. After training the scoring model, we will fix its parameters and apply it to self-training. + +# 2.3 Self-Training with Feedback + +To improve the base event extraction model with self-training, we take the new event predictions $(\tilde{\tau}_i,\tilde{l}_{\tau_i},\tilde{\varepsilon}_j,\tilde{\alpha}_{ij})$ from the unlabeled corpus $\mathcal{X}_u$ as pseudo samples to further train the event extraction + +model. The gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample is computed as: + +$$ +g _ {i j} ^ {s t} = \nabla_ {\theta} \mathbf {L} ^ {\mathrm {E}} \left(\tilde {W}, (\tilde {\tau} _ {i}, \tilde {l} _ {\tau_ {i}}, \tilde {a} _ {i j}, \tilde {\varepsilon} _ {j}); \theta\right) +$$ + +where $\theta$ denotes the parameters of the event extraction model. Note that there can be multiple event predictions in one sentence. + +Due to the prediction errors of the pseudo labels, simply following the gradients $g_{ij}^{st}$ computed on the pseudo labels can hurt model's performance. Thus, we utilize the correctness score $c_{ij}$ predicted by the scoring model to update the gradients, based on the motivation that: (1) if an event prediction is compatible with the AMR structure, it's likely to be correct and we should encourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (2) on the other side, if an event prediction is incompatible with its AMR structure, it's likely incorrect and we should discourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (3) if the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the event prediction, we should reduce the magnitude of the gradients learned from the pseudo label. Motivated by this, we first design a transformation function $f^c$ to project the correctness score $c_{ij} \in [0,1]$ into a range $[-1,1]$ where -1 (or $c_{ij} = 0$ ) indicates incompatible, 1 (or $c_{ij} = 1$ ) means compatible, and 0 (or $c_{ij} = 0.5$ ) means uncertain. Here, $f^c$ is based on a linear mapping: + +$$ +f ^ {c} (c _ {i j}) = 2 \times c _ {i j} - 1 +$$ + +We then apply the compatibility scores as feedback to update the gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample during self-training: + +$$ +\mathbf {L} ^ {\mathrm {S T F}} = \sum_ {i, j} f ^ {c} \left(c _ {i j}\right) \cdot \mathbf {L} ^ {\mathrm {E}} \left(\tilde {W}, \left(\tilde {\tau} _ {i}, \tilde {l} _ {\tau_ {i}}, \tilde {a} _ {i j}, \tilde {\varepsilon} _ {j}\right); \theta\right) +$$ + +To improve the efficiency of self-training, we update the event extraction model on every minibatch, and to avoid the model diverging, we combine the supervised training and self-training, so the overall loss for STF is: + +$$ +\mathbf {L} = \mathbf {L} ^ {\mathrm {E}} + \beta \mathbf {L} ^ {\mathrm {S T F}} +$$ + +where $\beta$ is the combining ratio, $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{E}}$ is computed on the labeled dataset $\mathcal{X}_L$ and $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{STF}}$ is computed on the pseudo-labeled instances from $\mathcal{X}_u$ . + +# 3 Experimental Setups + +For evaluation, we consider two base event extraction models: OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) due to their superior performance on event extraction and publicly available source code, and demonstrate the effectiveness of STF on three benchmark datasets: ACE05-E, ACE05- $\mathbf{E}^{+}$ and ERE-EN, with the same evaluation metrics following previous studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022) $^{13}$ . To show the generalizability of STF, we explore two unlabeled corpora for self-training: (1) AMR 3.0 (Knight et al., 2021) which originally contains 55,635 sentences in the training set while each sentence is associated with a manually annotated AMR graph. (2) New York Times Annotated Corpus (NYT) contains over 1.8 million articles that were published between 1987 to 2007. We randomly sample 55,635 sentences $^{14}$ from articles published in 2004. Because NYT dataset does not have AMR annotations, we run a pre-trained AMR parser (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate system AMR parsing. + +Besides taking the recent state-of-the-art event extraction studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022) $^{15}$ as baselines, we also compare our proposed STF with two other training strategies: (1) vanilla Self-Training (Rosenberg et al., 2005) which consists of two stages similar as STF but in the second stage takes each new event prediction from the unlabeled data with a probability higher than 0.9 based on the base event extraction model as a pseudo label and combines them with the labeled data to re-train the event extraction model; and (2) Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning (GradLRE) (Hu et al., 2021b). GradLRE encourages the gradients computed on the pseudo-labeled data to imitate the gradients computed on the labeled data by using the cosine distance between the two sources of gradients as a reward to perform policy gradi + +ent reinforcement learning (Sutton et al., 1999). GradLRE showed improvements over other selftraining methods on low-resource relation extraction which is a similar task to argument role classification. Appendix C describes the training details for both baselines and our approach. + +# 4 Results and Discussion + +# 4.1 Evaluation of Scoring Model + +We first evaluate the performance of the scoring model by measuring how well it distinguishes the correct and incorrect argument role predictions from an event extraction model. Specifically, we compute event predictions by running a fully trained event extraction model (i.e., OneIE or AMR-IE) on the validation and test sets of the three benchmark datasets. Based on the gold event annotations, we create a gold binary label (correct or incorrect) for each argument role prediction to indicate its correctness. For each event prediction, we pass it along with the corresponding AMR graph of the source sentence into the scoring model. If the correctness16 predicted by the scoring model agrees with the gold binary label, we treat it as a true prediction for scoring model, otherwise, a false prediction. + +To examine the impact of leveraging AMR in scoring model performance, we develop a baseline scoring model that shares the same structure with our proposed scoring model except that it does not take an AMR graph as an input. Specifically, the baseline scoring model just takes the event mention (triggers, arguments and argument labels) in order to measure the compatibility score. The baseline scoring model is essentially an ablation of our scoring model where the AMR path is absent. As shown in Table 2, the performance of our scoring model outperforms the baseline scoring model by 1.4-1.7 F-score on the test sets, demonstrating the effectiveness of AMR graph in characterizing the correctness of each event prediction. + +In Table 1, we can observe that the semantics and structure of AMR paths can be easily mapped to argument role types. Sometimes, the even triggers are far from their arguments in plain text, but the AMR paths between them is short and informative. Another observation is that the scoring model tends to assign positive scores to argument roles that are + +more compatible with the AMR paths, although sometimes the scores for the gold argument roles are not the highest. + +# 4.2 Evaluation of STF on Event Extraction + +Table 3 shows the event extraction results of both our approach and strong baselines $^{17}$ . For clarity, in the rest of the section, we refer to our proposed framework as $\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ and our proposed framework with the baseline scoring model as $\mathrm{STF_{W/O\_AMR}}$ . We can see that, both $\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ and $\mathrm{STF_{W/O\_AMR}}$ improve the performance of the event extraction models on argument role classification while the vanilla self-training and GradLRE barely work, demonstrating the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback to the pseudo labels during self-training. + +We further analyze the reasons in terms of why the vanilla self-training and GradLRE do not work and notice that: due to the data scarcity, the base event extraction model (i.e., OneIE) performs poorly on many argument roles (lower than $40\%$ F-score). Thus, the event predictions on unlabeled corpora can be very noisy and inaccurate. The model suffers from confirmation bias (Tarvainen and Valpola, 2017; Arazo et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2020): it accumulates errors and diverges when it's iteratively trained on such noisy pseudo labeled examples during self-training. In addition, we also notice that with self-training, the event extraction model becomes overconfident about its predictions. We check the averaged probability of all the argument role predictions on the unlabeled dataset which is 0.93. In such case, it is clear that the predicted probability can not faithfully reflect the correctness of the predictions, which is referred as the calibration error (Guo et al., 2017; Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana, 2005). Thus, the self-training process which relies on overconfident prediction can become highly biased and diverge from the initial baseline model. In GradLRE, the quality of the reward is highly depend on the averaged gradient direction computed during the supervised training process. However, due to the scarcity of the training data, the stored gradient direction can be unreliable. In addition, the gradient computed on the pseudo-labeled dataset with high reward is used to update the average gradient direction, which can introduce noises into the reward function. As seen + +
Tell that to the family of Margaret Hassan, the school teacher who was brutally tortured and then slaughtered by these same guys, they aren't so bad are they Chris Matthews?AMR Path: [slaughtered, ARG1, teacher, MODIFIER, Margaret Hassan] +Pred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.99 +Gold Arg: Victim; Compatibility Score: 0.99
It is irritating enough to get sued by Sam Sloan; imagine how irritating it would be to get BEATEN by him because you have done something so egregious that a court is forced to agree with him.AMR Path: [sued, ARG0, Sam Sloan] +Pred Arg: Adjudicator; Compatibility Score: -0.99 +Gold Arg: Plaintiff; Compatibility Score: 0.67
Protests against the action aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were held in cities across Libya, Egypt and Lebanon, as well as in Amman, Damascus and the Gaza Strip.AMR Path: [Protests, ARG0, held, ARG1, were, PLACE, Amman] +Pred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.52 +Gold Arg: Place; Compatibility Score: 0.74
Meanwhile Blair arrived in Washington late Wednesday for two days of talks with Bush at the Camp David presidential retreat.AMR Path: [arrived, OTHER, talks, PLACE, retreat] +Pred Arg: Destination; Compatibility Score: -0.94 +Gold Arg: O; Compatibility Score: 0.31
+ +Table 1: Qualitative Results of the compatibility scores. + +
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Scoring w/o AMR87.485.987.986.982.883.1
Scoring w/ AMR88.287.488.888.684.484.5
+ +Table 2: The F-score $(\%)$ of the scoring models on various datasets. Scoring w/o AMR is the baseline scoring model without using AMR path. Scoring w/ AMR is the scoring model we proposed. + +in Table 3, the best models of self-training and GradLRE are on par or worse than the baseline approach, and these approaches show the detrimental effects as they show a continuous decline of the performance as training proceeds. + +By considering AMR structure, $\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ encourages the event extraction models to predict event structures that are more compatible with AMR graphs. This claim is supported by Table 4, which compares the compatibility scores between the model without STF (OneIE baseline) and one with STF (OneIE +STF) framework on the three benchmark datasets. The compatibility scores are measured by the AMR based scoring models. We can clearly see that the compatibility scores measured on OneIE $+\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ are much higher than the scores measured on base OneIE. + +Lastly, we observe that $\mathrm{OneIE + STF_{AMR}}$ outperforms AMR-IE $^+$ STFAMR, even when AMR-IE performs better than OneIE baseline without STF. We argue the reason is that even though $\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ does not need AMR parsing at inference time, AMR-IE does require AMR graphs at inference time which causes it to suffer from potential errors in the AMR parsing. On the other hand, OneIE trained by $\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}$ does not require AMR graphs at inference time, making it free from potential error propagation. Figure 2 shows more examples to illustrate how the feedback from AMR structures in STF helps to improve event predictions. + +# 4.3 Effect of Confidence Threshold + +Intuitively, STF can leverage both certain (including compatible and incompatible) and uncertain pseudo labeled examples, as when the example is uncertain, the probability $c$ predicted by the scoring model is close to 0.5 and thus $f^c(c)$ is close to 0, making the gradients computed on this pseudolabeled example close to 0. To verify this claim, we conduct experiments with $\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ by using the probability $c$ predicted by the scoring model to determine certain and uncertain pseudo labels and analyzing their effect to $\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ . Note that we don't use the probability from the base event extraction model due to its calibration error (Guo et al., 2017)18. Specifically, we first select a threshold $s^{st} \in \{0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9\}$ . For each pseudo example, if the probability $c$ predicted by the scoring model is higher than $s^{st}$ (indicating a confident positive prediction) or lower than $1 - s^{st}$ (indicating a confident negative prediction), we will add it for $\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ . The higher the threshold $s^{st}$ , the most certain pseudo labels we can select for $\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ . As Figure 3 shows, $\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ can even benefit from the less-confident pseudo labeled examples with threshold $s^{st}$ around 0.6, demonstrating that it can make better use of most of the predicted events from the unlabeled corpus for self-training. + +# 4.4 Impact of AMR Parsing + +AMR annotations are very expensive and hard to obtain. To show the potential of $\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ in the scenarios where gold AMR parsing is not available, we conduct experiments by leveraging the NYT 2004 corpus as the external unlabeled corpus with system generated AMR parsing for self-training. As shown in Table 5, with system-based AMR, STF can also improve the performance of base event extraction models on all three benchmark datasets, + +
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Tri-CArg-CTri-CArg-CTri-CArg-C
DyGIE (Wadden et al., 2019)69.748.867.342.7--
BERT_QA(Arg (Du and Cardie, 2020)72.453.370.648.357.039.2
FourIE (Nguyen et al., 2021)75.458.073.357.557.948.6
Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021)71.953.871.854.459.448.3
DEGREE (Hsu et al., 2022)73.355.870.956.357.149.6
Query Extract (Wang et al., 2022)--73.655.160.450.4
UIE (Lu et al., 2022)73.454.8----
Base OneIE (Lin et al., 2020)74.057.473.457.260.249.8
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.057.273.857.360.149.4
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.657.473.557.460.550.3
+STFW/O_AMR74.457.973.857.660.451.0
+STFAMR (ours)75.058.973.459.060.652.0
Base AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021)74.457.773.457.260.450.5
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.257.473.457.160.150.2
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.457.873.357.460.350.5
+STFW/O_AMR74.358.073.557.660.551.1
+STFAMR (ours)74.558.573.658.260.451.7
+ +Table 3: Test F1 scores of event trigger classification (Tri-C), and argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets. * denotes methods we re-implement to fit them into the event extraction task. Bold denotes the best performance in each local section and underline denotes the best global performance. + +
Sentence & Gold Event MentionsAMR PathBase OneIESTF
With marathon talks at the top world body failing late Thursday to reconcile French and Russian opposition to US-British war plans, the United States upped its military presence, deploying more missile-firing warships to the Red Sea. (Movement:Transport) deploying -> (Agent) -> United StatesARG0 +deploying United StatesArg Role:Other +Compatibility +Score: -1.0Arg Role:Agent +Compatibility +Score: 1.0
In Paris, the French media group said parent company chairman Jean - Rene Fourtou will replace Diller as chairman and chief executive of US unit. (Personnel:Start-Position) replace -> (Entity) -> unitand ARG2 Op Medium replace chairmanArg Role:Other +Compatibility +Score: 0.22Arg Role:Entity +Compatibility +Score: 0.93
In a verdict handed down on Saturday, the judge also ordered Ranjha to pay a fine of 50,000 rupees (about 870 US dollars), they said. (Justice:Fine) fine -> (Adjudicator) -> judgepay ARG1 ARG2 arg0 fine orderedArg Role:Entity +Compatibility +Score: -0.98Arg Role:Judiciary +Compatibility +Score: 1.0
The Daily Planet raised 3.5 million dollars (2.2 million US) in its initial public offering with one of the new 600 shareholders acquiring 1.0 million dollars worth of shares. (Transaction:Transfer-Money) acquiring -> (Other) -> shareholdersOther +acquiring shareholdersArg Role:Buyer +Compatibility +Score: -1.0Arg Role:Other +Compatibility +Score: 0.72
+ +Figure 2: Qualitative results of STF. Examples are taken from the development and test splits of ACE05-E. The orange tokens denote event triggers and blue tokens denote arguments. The AMR paths are between event triggers and arguments. The Base OneIE and STF fields show the predicted argument roles from two methods respectively. All the predictions from STF are correct. The compatibility scores are computed by the same scoring model. Note that OneIE and STF do not use AMR graph at inference time and AMR graph is shown just to provide intuitions. + +
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Base OneIE70.168.476.961.976.469.2
+ STFAMR72.270.880.264.078.075.1
+ +and improve over the baseline scoring model without using AMR. The gap between STF with gold AMR and STF with system AMR is small, demonstrating that STF is more robust to the potential errors from AMR parsing. + +Table 4: The compatibility scores computed by scoring models on the development and test sets of the three benchmark datasets. + +
ACE-EACE-E+ERE-EN
Base OneIE57.457.249.8
+ STF w/o AMR57.957.651.0
+ STF w/ sys_AMR58.258.151.4
+ STF w/ gold_AMR58.959.052.0
+ +Table 5: Performance comparison between using gold AMR, system-labeled AMR, and not using AMR. + +# 5 Related Work + +Most prior studies have been focusing on learning supervised models (Ji and Grishman, 2008; McClosky et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Feng et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016; Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al., + +![](images/83bc4dff7b94ac1f1f7ba78588ca75a27372244079915783ffd2279c51c26539.jpg) +Figure 3: Performance change with different thresholds to select certain pseudo labeled examples for self-training. + +2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; wan; Nguyen et al., 2021) based on manually annotated event mentions. However, the performance of event extraction has been barely improved in recent years, and one of the main reasons lies in the data scarcity and imbalance of the existing event annotations. Several self-training and semi-supervised studies have been proposed to automatically enrich the event annotations. Huang and Riloff (2012) uses extraction patterns based on nouns that, by definition, play a specific role in an event, to automatically label more data. Li et al. (2014) proposes various event inference mechanisms to reveal additional missing event mentions. (Huang, 2020; Huang and Ji, 2020) propose semi-supervised learning to automatically induce new event types and their corresponding event mentions while the performance of old types is also improved. (Liao and Grishman, 2010, 2011b; Ferguson et al., 2018b) propose techniques to select a more relevant and informative corpus for self-training. All these studies cannot handle the noise introduced by the automatically labeled data properly. Compared with them, our STF framework leverages a scoring model to estimate the correctness of each pseudo-labeled example, which further guides the gradient learning of the event extraction model, thus it can efficiently mitigate the impact of the noisy pseudo-labeled examples. + +Self-training has been studied for many years (Yarowsky, 1995; Riloff and Wiebe, 2003; Rosenberg et al., 2005) and widely adopted in many tasks including speech recognition (Kahn et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020), biomedical imaging (You et al., 2022a,b), parsing (McClosky et al., 2006; McClosky and Charniak, 2008), and pretraining (Du et al., 2021). Self-Training suffers from inaccurate pseudo labels (Arazo et al., 2020, 2019; Hu et al., 2021a) especially when the teacher + +model is trained on insufficient and unbalanced datasets. To address this problem, (Pham et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021a; Hu et al., 2021a) propose to utilize the performance of the student model on the held-out labeled data as a Meta-Learning objective to update the teacher model or improve the pseudo-label generation process. Hu et al. (2021b) leverage the cosine distance between gradients computed on labeled data and pseudo-labeled data as feedback to guide the self-training process. (Mehta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2021) leverage the span of named entities as constraints to improve semi-supervised semantic role labeling and syntactic parsing, respectively. + +# 6 Conclusion + +We propose a self-training with feedback (STF) framework to overcome the data scarcity issue of the event extract task. The STF framework estimates the correctness of each pseudo event prediction based on its compatibility with the corresponding AMR structure, and takes the compatibility score as feedback to guide the learning of the event extraction model on each pseudo label during self-training. We conduct experiments on three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+, and ERE, and prove that STF is effective and general as it can improve any base event extraction models with significant gains. We further demonstrate that STF can improve event extraction models on large-scale unlabeled corpora even without high-quality AMR annotations. + +# Limitations + +Our method utilizes the AMR annotations as additional training signals to alleviate the data scarcity problem in the event extraction task. In this problem setup, generally speaking, AMR annotations are more expensive than event extraction annotations. Nonetheless, in reality, the AMR dataset is much bigger than any existing event extraction dataset, and AMR parsers usually have higher performance than event extraction models. Leveraging existing resources to improve event extraction without requiring additional cost is a feasible and practical direction. Our work has demonstrated the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback from AMR to improve event argument extraction. However, it's still under-explored what additional information and tasks can be leveraged as feedback to improve trigger detection. + +We did not have quantitative results for the alignment between AMR and event graphs. The authors randomly sampled 50 event graphs from ACE05-E and found 41 are aligned with their AMR graphs based on human judgment. In future work, more systematic studies should be conducted to evaluate the alignment. + +There is a large gap between the validation and testing datasets in terms of label distribution on ACE05-E and ACE05-E+. We observe that performance improvement on the validation set sometimes leads to performance decreasing on the test set. Both the validation and test dataset miss certain labels for event trigger types and argument role types. The annotations in the training set, validation set, and test set are scarce and highly unbalanced, which causes the low performance on trained models. We argue that a large-scale more balanced benchmark dataset in the event extraction domain can lead to more solid conclusions and facilitate research. + +# Acknowledgments + +We thank the anonymous reviewers and area chair for their valuable time and constructive comments. This research is based upon work supported by the Amazon Research Award. Jay-Yoon Lee was supported in part by the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University. + +# References + +Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2019. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. CoRR, abs/1908.02983. +Eric Arazo, Diego Ortega, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2020. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, IJCNN 2020, Glasgow, United Kingdom, July 19-24, 2020, pages 1-8. IEEE. +Ramón Fernandez Astudillo, Miguel Ballesteros, Tahira Naseem, Austin Blodgett, and Radu Florian. 2020. Transition-based parsing with stack-transformers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 1001-1007. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin + +Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, LAW-ID@ACL 2013, August 8-9, 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, pages 178-186. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +Y. Chen, L. Xu, K. Liu, D. Zeng, and J. Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multi-pooling convolutional neural networks. In Proc. ACL2015. +Zheng Chen and Heng Ji. 2009. Can one language bootstrap the other: a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2009 Workshop on Semi-Supervised Learning for Natural Language Processing, pages 66-74. +Shumin Deng, Ningyu Zhang, Luoqiu Li, Chen Hui, Tou Huaixiao, Mosha Chen, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Ontoed: Low-resource event detection with ontology embedding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2828-2839. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jingfei Du, Edouard Grave, Belize Gunel, Vishrav Chaudhary, Onur Celebi, Michael Auli, Veselin Stoyanov, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Self-training improves pre-training for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5408-5418. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xinya Du and Claire Cardie. 2020. Event extraction by answering (almost) natural questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 671-683, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xiaocheng Feng, Lifu Huang, Duyu Tang, Bing Qin, Heng Ji, and Ting Liu. 2016. A language-independent neural network for event detection. In The 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page 66. +James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018a. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: + +Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364. +James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S. Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018b. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1321-1330. PMLR. +I-Hung Hsu, Kuan-Hao Huang, Elizabeth Boschee, Scott Miller, Prem Natarajan, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. DEGREE: A data-efficient generation-based event extraction model. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1890-1908. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Fukun Ma, Chenyao Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021a. Semi-supervised relation extraction via incremental meta self-training. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 487-496. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Yawen Yang, Xiaohe Li, Li Lin, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021b. Gradient imitation reinforcement learning for low resource relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 2737-2746. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Lifu Huang. 2020. Cold-start universal information extraction. Ph.D. thesis. +Lifu Huang, Taylor Cassidy, Xiaocheng Feng, Heng Ji, Clare Voss, Jiawei Han, and Avirup Sil. 2016. Liberal event extraction and event schema induction. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 258-268. +Lifu Huang and Heng Ji. 2020. Semi-supervised new event type induction and event detection. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 718-724. + +Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). +Ruihong Huang and Ellen Riloff. 2012. Bootstrapped training of event extraction classifiers. In EACL 2012, 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, April 23-27, 2012, pages 286-295. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +Heng Ji and Ralph Grishman. 2008. Refining event extraction through cross-document inference. In Proceedings of ACL-08: Hlt, pages 254-262. +Lu Jiang, Zhengyuan Zhou, Thomas Leung, Li-Jia Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Mentornet: Learning data-driven curriculum for very deep neural networks on corrupted labels. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2309-2318. PMLR. +Jacob Kahn, Ann Lee, and Awni Hannun. 2020. Self-training for end-to-end speech recognition. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7084-7088. +Kevin Knight, Bianca Badarau, Laura Baranescu, Claire Bonial, Madalina Bardocz, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Daniel Marcu, Martha Palmer, Tim O'Gorman, et al. 2021. Abstract meaning representation (amr) annotation release 3.0. +John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In ICML. +Peifeng Li, Qiaoming Zhu, and Guodong Zhou. 2014. Employing event inference to improve semi-supervised chinese event extraction. In COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference: Technical Papers, August 23-29, 2014, Dublin, Ireland, pages 2161-2171. ACL. +Qi Li, Heng Ji, and Liang Huang. 2013. Joint event extraction via structured prediction with global features. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2013, 4-9 August 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 73-82. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2010. Filtered ranking for bootstrapping in event extraction. In COLING 2010, 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China, pages 680-688. Tsinghua University Press. + +Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011a. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 260-265. +Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011b. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? A case study on event extraction. In The 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Conference, 19-24 June, 2011, Portland, Oregon, USA - Short Papers, pages 260-265. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692. +Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2Event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2795–2806, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics. +D. McClosky, M. Surdeanu, and C. D. Manning. 2011. Event extraction as dependency parsing. In ACL, pages 1626-1635. + +David McClosky and Eugene Charniak. 2008. Self-training for biomedical parsing. In ACL 2008, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 15-20, 2008, Columbus, Ohio, USA, Short Papers, pages 101-104. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +David McClosky, Eugene Charniak, and Mark Johnson. 2006. Effective self-training for parsing. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, June 4-9, 2006, New York, New York, USA. The Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Jay Yoon Lee, and Jaime G. Carbonell. 2018. Towards semi-supervised learning for deep semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4958-4963. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Minh Van Nguyen, Viet Lai, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2021. Cross-task instance representation interactions and label dependencies for joint information extraction with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 27-38. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Minh Van Nguyen, Bonan Min, Franck Dernoncourt, and Thien Nguyen. 2022. Joint extraction of entities, relations, and events via modeling inter-instance and inter-label dependencies. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4363-4374, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Thien Huu Nguyen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ralph Grishman. 2016. Joint event extraction via recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 300-309. +Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. 2005. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. pages 625-632. +Daniel S. Park, Yu Zhang, Ye Jia, Wei Han, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Bo Li, Yonghui Wu, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Improved noisy student training for automatic speech recognition. CoRR, abs/2005.09629. +Hieu Pham, Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Meta pseudo labels. CoRR, abs/2003.10580. +Sudha Rao, Daniel Marcu, Kevin Knight, and Hal Daumé III. 2017. Biomedical event extraction using Abstract Meaning Representation. In BioNLP 2017, + +pages 126-135, Vancouver, Canada., Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ellen Riloff and Janyce Wiebe. 2003. Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2003, Sapporo, Japan, July 11-12, 2003. +Chuck Rosenberg, Martial Hebert, and Henry Schneiderman. 2005. Semi-supervised self-training of object detection models. In 7th IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision / IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing (WACV/MOTION 2005), 5-7 January 2005, Breckenridge, CO, USA, pages 29-36. IEEE Computer Society. +Richard S. Sutton, David A. McAllester, Satinder Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 1999. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12, [NIPS Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, November 29 - December 4, 1999], pages 1057-1063. The MIT Press. +Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. 2017. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 1195-1204. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. CoRR, abs/1706.03762. +David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5783-5788. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sijia Wang, Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Lichao Sun, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Query and extract: Refining event extraction as type-oriented binary decoding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 169-182. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yaqing Wang, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Haoda Chu, Yuancheng Tu, Ming Wu, Jing Gao, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021a. Meta self-training for few-shot neural sequence labeling. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 1737-1747. ACM. +Ziqi Wang, Xiaozhi Wang, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Lei Hou, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Zhou. + +2021b. CLEVE: contrastive pre-training for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6283-6297. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256. +Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay-Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 4818-4831. Association for Computational Linguistics. +David Yarowsky. 1995. Unsupervised word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 26-30 June 1995, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, Proceedings, pages 189-196. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers / ACL. +Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Fenglin Liu, Haoran Su, Xiaoran Zhang, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022a. Mine your own anatomy: Revisiting medical image segmentation with extremely limited labels. CoRR, abs/2209.13476. +Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022b. Bootstrapping semi-supervised medical image segmentation with anatomical-aware contrastive distillation. CoRR, abs/2206.02307. +Zixuan Zhang and Heng Ji. 2021. Abstract meaning representation guided graph encoding and decoding for joint information extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 39-49. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Groups of AMR Relations + +Table 7 shows the new categories and labels of AMR relations. + +# B The Statistics of Datasets + +Table 7 shows the statistics of the three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+ and ERE-EN. + +
Group LabelAMR Relations
ARG0ARG0
ARG1ARG1
ARG2ARG2
ARG3ARG3
ARG4ARG4
Destinationdestination
Sourcesource
Instrumentinstrument
Beneficiarybeneficiary
Prep rolesrole starts with prep
Op rolesrole start with op
Entity rolewiki, name
Arg-X roleARG5, ARG6, ARG7 ARG8, ARG9
Place rolelocation, path, direction
Medium rolemanner, poss, medium, topic
Modifier roledomain, mod, example
Part-whole rolepart, consist, subevent, subset
Time rolecalendar, century, day, dayperiod, decade, era, month, quarter, season,timezone, weekday, year, year2, time
Otherspurpose, li, quant, polarity, condition, extent, degree, cnt1, cnt2, ARG5, cnt3, concession, ord, unit, mode, value, frequency, polite, age, accompanier, cnt4, cnt10, cnt5, cnt6, cnt7, cnt8, cnt9, cnt11, scale, conj-as-if, rel
+ +Table 6: The 19 groups of the AMR relations used in our paper. + +# C Training Details + +For all experiments, we use Roberta-large as the language model which has 355M parameters. We train all of our models on a single A100 GPU. + +Base OneIE We follow the same training process as (Lin et al., 2020) to train the OneIE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters the same as (Lin et al., 2020). For each dataset we train 3 OneIE models and report the averaged performance. + +Base AMR-IE We follow the same training process as (Zhang and Ji, 2021) to train the AMR-IE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters exactly the same as (Zhang + +and Ji, 2021). For each dataset we train 3 AMR-IE models and report the averaged performance. + +Scoring Model We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the score model for 60 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-4 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 10. The scoring model contains two self-attention layers. We train 3 scoring models and reported the averaged performance. + +Self-Training For self-training we use SGD as optimizer and continue to train the converged base OneIE model for 30 epochs with batch size 12, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters except the CRF layers and global features which are frozen. For self-training, we use 0.9 as the threshold to select the confident predictions as pseudo-labeled instances. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance. + +Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning For GradLRE, we use the BertAdam as the optimizer with batch size 16, learning rate 1e-5 and weight decay 1e-5 for the language encoder and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 1e-3 for other parameters to first train OneIE model for 60 epochs. The standard gradient direction vector is computed by averaging the gradient vector on each optimization step. Then following the same training process in the original paper, we perform 10 more epochs of Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning, and set the threshold for high reward as 0.5. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance. + +Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation For STF, we first train the OneIE model on the labeled dataset for 10 epochs and continue to train it on the mixture of unlabeled data and labeled dataset for 70 more epochs with batch size 10, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters. We leverage a linear scheduler to compute the value for the loss combining ratio $\beta$ . The value of $\beta$ is computed as $\frac{\text{epoch}}{70}$ . For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance. For model selection, we propose a new method called Compatibility-Score Based Model + +
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# Sent17,17292383219,24090267614,7361,2091,163
# Entities29,0062,4513,01747,5253,4223,67338,8643,3203,291
# Events4,2024504034,4194684246,208525551
+ +Selection which is discussed in the following paragraph. + +The data scarcity problem not only appears in the training data of ACE-05, ACE-05+ and ERE-EN but appears in the development set. For example, in ACE-05, the development set only contains only 603 labeled argument roles for 22 argument role classes and 7 argument role classes have lees than 10 instances. To alleviate this problem, we propose to leverage part of the large-scale unlabeled dataset as a held-out development set. At the end of each epoch, instead of evaluating the event extraction model on the development set, we run the event extraction model on the unlabeled held-out development set to make event predictions and run the scoring model on the event predictions to compute compatibility scores. We utilize the averaged compatibility scores computed on all instances in the unlabeled held-out development datasets as the model selection criteria. We argue this is another application of the scoring model since its goal is to evaluate the correctness of event predictions. The size of the unlabeled held-out development set is 2,000. + +# D Results of Base OneIE and $+\mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ + +We show the F1 scores of Base OneIE and $+ \mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ on three benchmark datasets with variances denoted. As one can see that Base OneIE and $+ \mathrm{STF}_{\mathrm{AMR}}$ have similar variances on all three datasets except ACE05-E+. We leave how to reduce the variance of argument role classification to future work. + +Table 7: The statistics of the three benchmarks used in our paper. + +
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Arg-CArg-CArg-C
Base OneIE57.4 ±1.2357.2 ±0.3249.8 ±0.45
+STFAMR (ours)58.9 ±1.2859.0 ±1.0352.0 ±0.40
+ +Table 8: Test F1 scores of argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We are not aware of potential risks in our work. +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +3 + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3 +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We don't introduce new artifacts in the paper. +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? not applicable +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? +we didn't collect data +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? not applicable +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix B + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +4 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? appendix C + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? +appendix C +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? +appendix C +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3 + +# D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? not applicable + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/images.zip b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f201eaa6d647810dc7f7d2e8361a72029735dc70 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:33024a897392c3cd02afdc1666a02ff1ae8b79f1a7bbe055aeab665289246c1b +size 601299 diff --git a/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/layout.json b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df85ec8578f53f1b166678c5125b9e620132b70d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning from a Friend_ Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11854 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 74, + 516, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 74, + 516, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 74, + 516, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning from a Friend: Improving Event Extraction via Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 119, + 423, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 119, + 423, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 119, + 423, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyang Xu\\* Jay-Yoon Lee\\* Lifu Huang\\*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 134, + 418, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 134, + 418, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 134, + 418, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\spadesuit" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 134, + 418, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 148, + 446, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 148, + 446, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 148, + 446, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 163, + 369, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 163, + 369, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 163, + 369, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{zhiyangx, lifuh}@vt.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 177, + 354, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 177, + 354, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 177, + 354, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lee.jayyoon@snu.ac.kr" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 233, + 274, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 233, + 274, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 233, + 274, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data scarcity has been the main factor that hinders the progress of event extraction. To overcome this issue, we propose a Self-Training with Feedback (STF) framework that leverages the large-scale unlabeled data and acquires feedback for each new event prediction from the unlabeled data by comparing it to the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graph of the same sentence. Specifically, STF consists of (1) a base event extraction model trained on existing event annotations and then applied to large-scale unlabeled corpora to predict new event mentions as pseudo training samples, and (2) a novel scoring model that takes in each new predicted event trigger, an argument, its argument role, as well as their paths in the AMR graph to estimate a compatibility score indicating the correctness of the pseudo label. The compatibility scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the model learning on the pseudo labels during self-training. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 233, + 274, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 233, + 274, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and ERE, demonstrate the effectiveness of the STF framework on event extraction, especially event argument extraction, with significant performance gain over the base event extraction models and strong baselines. Our experimental analysis further shows that STF is a generic framework as it can be applied to improve most, if not all, event extraction models by leveraging large-scale unlabeled data, even when high-quality AMR graph annotations are not available." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 233, + 274, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 636, + 154, + 649 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 636, + 154, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 636, + 154, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 657, + 290, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 657, + 290, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 657, + 290, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Event extraction (EE), which aims to identify and classify event triggers and arguments, has been a long-standing challenging problem in natural language processing. Despite the large performance leap brought by advances in deep learning, recent" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 525, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "studies (Deng et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) have shown that the data scarcity of existing event annotations has been the major issue that hinders the progress of EE. For example, in ACE-05" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", one of the most popular event extraction benchmark datasets, 10 of the 33 event types have less than 80 annotations. However, creating event annotations is extremely expensive and time-consuming, e.g., it takes several linguists over one year to annotate 500 documents with about 5000 event mentions for ACE-05." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To overcome the data scarcity issue of EE, previous studies (Chen and Ji, 2009; Liao and Grishman, 2011a; Ferguson et al., 2018a) develop self-training methods that allow the trained EE model to learn further by regarding its own predictions on large-scale unlabeled corpora as pseudo labels. However, simply adding the high-confidence event predictions to the training set inevitably introduces noises (Liu et al., 2021; Arazo et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2018), especially given that the current state-of-the-art performance of event argument extraction is still less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F-score. To tackle this challenge, we introduce a Self-Training with Feedback framework, named STF, which consists of an event extraction model that is firstly trained on the existing event annotations and then continually updated on the unlabeled corpus with self-training, and a scoring model that is to evaluate the correctness of the new event predictions (pseudo labels) from the unlabeled corpus, and the scores further act as feedback to encourage or discourage the learning of the event extraction model on the pseudo labels during self-training, inspired by the REINFORCE algorithms (Williams, 1992)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 525, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, the event extraction model of our STF framework can be based on any state-of-the-art architecture. In this paper, we choose OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021), due" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 515, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/collaborations/past-projects/ace" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 731, + 173, + 741 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 731, + 173, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 731, + 173, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* corresponding authors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1The source code and model checkpoints are publicly available at https://github.com/VT-NLP/Event Extraction_with_Self_Training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10421" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 461, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10421-10437" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to their superior performance and publicly available source code. The scoring model leverages the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) which has been proven to be able to provide rich semantic and structural signals to map AMR structures to event predictions (Huang et al., 2016, 2018; Wang et al., 2021b) and thus their compatibility can indicate the correctness of each event prediction. The scoring model is a self-attention network that takes in a predicted event trigger, a candidate argument and its argument role, as well as their path in the AMR graph of the whole sentence, and computes a score ranging in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[-1, 1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the compatibility between the AMR and the predicted event structure: -1 means incompatible, 1 means compatible, and 0 means uncertain. Inspired by the REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992), we multiply the compatibility scores and the gradient of the EE model computed on the pseudo event labels during self-training, so as to (1) encourage the event extraction model to follow the gradient and hence maximize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is compatible with the AMR structure; (2) negate the gradient and minimize the likelihood of the pseudo label when it is incompatible with the AMR structure; and (3) reduce the magnitude of the gradient when the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the pseudo label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We take AMR " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.0^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and part of the New York Times (NYT) 2004 corpus" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as additional unlabeled corpora to enhance the event extraction model with STF, and evaluate the event extraction performance on three public benchmark datasets: ACE05-E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", ACE05-E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{+6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and ERE-EN" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{7}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 450, + 292, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The experimental results demonstrate that: (1) the vanilla self-training barely improves event extraction due to the noise introduced by the pseudo examples, while the proposed STF framework leverages the compatibility scores from the scoring model as feedback and thus makes more robust and efficient use of the pseudo labels; (2) STF is a generic framework and can be applied to improve most, if not all, of the event extraction models optimized by gradient descent algorithm and achieves significant improvement over the base event extraction models and strong baselines on event argument extraction on the three public benchmark datasets; (3) By exploiting dif" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ferent unlabeled corpora with gold or system-based AMR parsing, STF always improves the base event extraction models, demonstrating that it can work with various qualities of AMR parsing. Notably, different from previous studies (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) that require high-quality AMR graphs as input to the model during both training and inference, STF does not require any AMR graphs during inference, making it more computationally efficient and free from the potential errors propagated from AMR parsing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 455, + 246 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 455, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 455, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 STF for Event Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The event extraction task consists of three subtasks: event detection, argument identification and argument role classification. Given an input sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W = [w_{1}, w_{2}, \\dots, w_{N}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", event detection aims to identify the span of an event trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and assign a label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_{\\tau_{i}} \\in \\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the set of target event types. Argument identification aims to find the span of an argument " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varepsilon_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and argument role classification further predicts a role " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{ij} \\in \\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that the argument " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varepsilon_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " plays in an event " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given the set of target argument roles " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 527, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 527, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 527, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 527, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1 shows the overview of our STF framework which consists of two training stages. At the first stage, a base event extraction model (Section 2.1) is trained on a labeled dataset. At the second stage, we apply the trained event extraction model to an unlabeled corpus to predict new event mentions. Instead of directly taking the new event predictions as pseudo training examples like the vanilla self-training, we propose a novel scoring model (Section 2.2) to estimate the correctness of each event prediction by measuring its compatibility to the corresponding AMR graph, and then take both event predictions and their compatibility scores to continue to train the base event extraction model while the scores update the gradient computed on pseudo labels (Section 2.3). After the training of the second stage, we get a new event extraction model and evaluate it on the test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 469, + 672 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 469, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 469, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Base Event Extraction Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our proposed framework can be applied to most, if not all, event extraction models. We select OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) as base models given their state-of-the-art performance on the event extraction task and publicly available source code. Next, we briefly describe the common architectures in the two models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 716, + 245, + 729 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 716, + 245, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 716, + 245, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 716, + 245, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2020T02." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 729, + 243, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 729, + 243, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 729, + 243, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 729, + 243, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2008T19" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 740, + 243, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 740, + 243, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 740, + 243, + 751 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 740, + 243, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 751, + 243, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 751, + 243, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 751, + 243, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 751, + 243, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{7}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deep Exploration and Filtering of Test (DEFT) program." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10422" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6aa067a9242a8c6d06ccec8e4dc601b8f4eff17cab6c438a71f4e9d92e208bf3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 266, + 525, + 339 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 266, + 525, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 266, + 525, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The overall framework of STF (We omit the first stage of STF.). Given an unlabeled sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 266, + 525, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 266, + 525, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": (1) run an event extraction model to compute event predictions and an AMR parser to parse it into an AMR graph; (2) map the predicted trigger and argument to corresponding nodes in the AMR graph, find their AMR path and combine it with the predicted event type and argument role into a new sequence (Life:Die, killed, ARG0, commands, ARG0, PLACE, Iraq, Other); (3) feed the sequence into the scoring model to compute a compatibility score; (4) leverage the pseudo label and compatibility score to further update the event extraction model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and refer readers to the original papers for more details. OneIE and AMR-IE perform event extraction in four8 steps. First, a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) computes the contextual representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for an input sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Second, two identification layers take in the contextual representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". One identifies the spans of event triggers and the other identifies the spans of arguments (i.e., entities). Both of them are based on a linear classification layer followed by a CRF layer (Lafferty et al., 2001) to capture the dependencies between predicted tags. They are optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of the gold-standard tag path, which is denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Tri\\_I}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Arg\\_I}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for trigger and argument identification, respectively. Third, for each trigger or argument candidate, we compute its representation by averaging the token representations within the whole identified span. Each trigger representation is fed into a classification layer to predict its type by minimizing the cross-entropy classification loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Tri\\_C}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Each pair of trigger and argument representations are concatenated and fed into another classification layer to predict the argument role, which is also optimized by the cross-entropy loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{Arg\\_C}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, both OneIE and AMR-IE learn an additional global feature vector to capture the interactions across sub-tasks (e.g., a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "LOC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 348, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entity is impossible to be the Attacker of an Attack event)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and instances (e.g., the Defendant of a Sentence event can also be an Agent of a Die event). During training, a global feature score is computed for the predicted information graph and the gold annotation, respectively, from their global feature vectors. The training objective is to minimize the gap between these two global feature scores, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus, the overall loss for the base event extraction model is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 477, + 518, + 493 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 477, + 518, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 477, + 518, + 493 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} = \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {T r i} _ {-} \\mathrm {I}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {A r g} _ {-} \\mathrm {I}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {T r i} _ {-} \\mathrm {C}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {A r g} _ {-} \\mathrm {C}} + \\mathbf {L} ^ {G},", + "image_path": "5ae72e2096f6dc4ba43c17a3fe370b8902c2c6f0bb2af2342ca760a9f742c8c7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As the first stage of our STF framework, we optimize the base event extraction model on labeled event mentions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X}_L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{E}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the trained model will later be used to predict new event mentions for self-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 399, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 399, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 399, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Scoring Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "At the second stage of STF, we aim to further improve the event extraction model by taking the event mentions predicted from an external unlabeled corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X}_u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as pseudo samples for self-training. To avoid the noise contained in the pseudo samples, we propose a scoring model that can evaluate the correctness of each event prediction. Our scoring model takes AMR graph as a reference motivated by the observation that an event structure usually shares similar semantics and network topology as the AMR graph of the same sentence, thus their compatibility can be used to measure the correctness of each event structure. This observation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8We only focus on event extraction task and thus omit the description of relation extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10423" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "has also been discussed and shown effective in previous studies (Rao et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018; Zhang and Ji, 2021). However, previous studies directly take AMR graphs as input to the extraction model and thus require AMR graphs during both training and inference, making their performance highly dependent on the quality of AMR parsing. Different from them, our proposed STF only takes AMR graphs during reference to measure the correctness of event predictions during self-training, making it free from the potential errors propagation from AMR parsing during inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{W} \\in \\mathcal{X}_u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the unlabeled corpus and a predicted trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\tau}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and its argument " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we aim to estimate a correctness score for each pair of the trigger and argument prediction based on its compatibility with their path in the AMR graph9. Thus, we first apply the state-of-the-art AMR parsing tool (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate an AMR graph for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G = (V,E)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E = \\{(v_i,e_{ij},v_j)|e_{ij} \\in \\mathcal{R}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We follow (Huang et al., 2016; Zhang and Ji, 2021) and group the original set of AMR relations into 19 categories10, thus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes a particular relation category and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the set of AMR relation categories. Then, we identify the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from AMR graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the corresponding node of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\tau}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", by node alignment following Zhang and Ji (2021). Then, we utilize the Breadth First Search to find the shortest path " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that connects and includes, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If there is no path between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 233, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we add a new edge to connect them and assign other as the relation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a predicted trigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\tau}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and its type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a predicted argument " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and its argument role " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the scoring model estimates their correctness by taking " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as input and outputs a compatibility score. As Figure 1 shows, it consists of a language model encoder (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) to encode the sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and obtain the contextual representations for the tokens11, which are then used to initialize the representation of each node in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the alignment between the input tokens and the nodes in AMR graph following Zhang and Ji (2021). We draw edge representations from the AMR relation embedding matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{rel}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "bine them with node representations to form " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a representation for path " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We also get an event type representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_{\\tau_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the event-type embedding matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{tri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an argument role representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_{\\alpha_{ij}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the argument role embedding matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{arg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{rel}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{tri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{arg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are all randomly initialized and will be optimized during training. Finally, we obtain the initial representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init} = [\\mathbf{h}_{\\tau_i}, \\mathbf{H}_{p_{ij}}, \\mathbf{h}_{\\alpha_{ij}}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i}, p_{ij}, \\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To estimate the compatibility between the event trigger and argument prediction and their path in the AMR graph, we apply multi-layer self-attention (Vaswani et al., 2017) over the joint representation of the AMR path and the event prediction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to learn better contextual representations for the sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i},p_{ij},\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and we add the position embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{pos}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " before feed it into the self-attention layers:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 340, + 498, + 359 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 340, + 498, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 340, + 498, + 359 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {f i n a l} = s e l f - a t t e n t i o n (\\mathbf {H} _ {i j} ^ {i n i t}) \\times M,", + "image_path": "f4ca79279233d53c3df55c931836d15d0f8d489bf0aadebb018e698ca8ecda02.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 520, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 520, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 520, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 520, + 380 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 520, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the number of attention layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we compute an overall vector representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{H}}_{ij}^{final}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{final}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " via average-pooling and feed it into a linear-layer and a Sigmoid function to compute a probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", indicating the correctness of the predicted event trigger and argument. We optimize the scoring model based on the binary cross-entropy objective:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 483, + 475, + 499 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 483, + 475, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 483, + 475, + 499 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\text {S c o r e}} = \\operatorname {B C E} \\left(y _ {i j}, c _ {i j}; \\psi\\right),", + "image_path": "0ca292528a6830cf3b9bc654d613515b78640dcb3256b7b2c83d67129f14c6f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{ij} \\in (0,1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a binary label that indicates the argument role is correct (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{ij} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") or not (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{ij} = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). The parameters of the scoring model. During training, we have gold triggers and arguments as positive training instances and we swap the argument roles in positive training instances with randomly sampled incorrect labels to create negative training instances. After training the scoring model, we will fix its parameters and apply it to self-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 464, + 666 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 464, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 464, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Self-Training with Feedback" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 524, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To improve the base event extraction model with self-training, we take the new event predictions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\tilde{\\tau}_i,\\tilde{l}_{\\tau_i},\\tilde{\\varepsilon}_j,\\tilde{\\alpha}_{ij})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the unlabeled corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X}_u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as pseudo samples to further train the event extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12We don't consider the cases where the trigger labels are incorrect, since by observation the semantics and structure of AMR graphs are more related to the argument role types between event triggers and their arguments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9Comparing with the whole AMR graph, the path of the trigger and argument in the AMR graph shows more improvement for the scoring model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 720, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 720, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 720, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10The details of AMR relation categories are shown in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11If a token is split into multiple subtokens, we average the representations of all subtokens to obtain an overall token representation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10424" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "model. The gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample is computed as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 112, + 260, + 135 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 112, + 260, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 112, + 260, + 135 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "g _ {i j} ^ {s t} = \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} \\left(\\tilde {W}, (\\tilde {\\tau} _ {i}, \\tilde {l} _ {\\tau_ {i}}, \\tilde {a} _ {i j}, \\tilde {\\varepsilon} _ {j}); \\theta\\right)", + "image_path": "43a8a7a8f495e16b42770204c0d2f317e2e6c3fdcc6e7f5e43cf1273cc0d5357.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 188 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the parameters of the event extraction model. Note that there can be multiple event predictions in one sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Due to the prediction errors of the pseudo labels, simply following the gradients " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{ij}^{st}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " computed on the pseudo labels can hurt model's performance. Thus, we utilize the correctness score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicted by the scoring model to update the gradients, based on the motivation that: (1) if an event prediction is compatible with the AMR structure, it's likely to be correct and we should encourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (2) on the other side, if an event prediction is incompatible with its AMR structure, it's likely incorrect and we should discourage the model learning on the pseudo label; (3) if the scoring model is uncertain about the correctness of the event prediction, we should reduce the magnitude of the gradients learned from the pseudo label. Motivated by this, we first design a transformation function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f^c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to project the correctness score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{ij} \\in [0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into a range " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[-1,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where -1 (or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{ij} = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") indicates incompatible, 1 (or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{ij} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") means compatible, and 0 (or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{ij} = 0.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") means uncertain. Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f^c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is based on a linear mapping:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 489, + 228, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 489, + 228, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 489, + 228, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f ^ {c} (c _ {i j}) = 2 \\times c _ {i j} - 1", + "image_path": "3388e5dfc6fedcec3e7bd1772446324335ea0d19fdaa32b53d43bfd5584d4055.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 291, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then apply the compatibility scores as feedback to update the gradients of the event extraction model on each pseudo sample during self-training:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 575, + 285, + 605 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 575, + 285, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 575, + 285, + 605 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {S T F}} = \\sum_ {i, j} f ^ {c} \\left(c _ {i j}\\right) \\cdot \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} \\left(\\tilde {W}, \\left(\\tilde {\\tau} _ {i}, \\tilde {l} _ {\\tau_ {i}}, \\tilde {a} _ {i j}, \\tilde {\\varepsilon} _ {j}\\right); \\theta\\right)", + "image_path": "c248a31d9d3ea5e123a7046b36ee7715c25c1e79e8e099778524fccc128c022a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 292, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 292, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 292, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To improve the efficiency of self-training, we update the event extraction model on every minibatch, and to avoid the model diverging, we combine the supervised training and self-training, so the overall loss for STF is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 702, + 218, + 717 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 702, + 218, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 702, + 218, + 717 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {L} = \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {E}} + \\beta \\mathbf {L} ^ {\\mathrm {S T F}}", + "image_path": "6774a8832882871aa36107b99cbb297268558cd6a68dff138e0fde11381a33f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the combining ratio, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{E}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed on the labeled dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X}_L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}^{\\mathrm{STF}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed on the pseudo-labeled instances from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X}_u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 431, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 431, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 431, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experimental Setups" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For evaluation, we consider two base event extraction models: OneIE (Lin et al., 2020) and AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021) due to their superior performance on event extraction and publicly available source code, and demonstrate the effectiveness of STF on three benchmark datasets: ACE05-E, ACE05-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and ERE-EN, with the same evaluation metrics following previous studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{13}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To show the generalizability of STF, we explore two unlabeled corpora for self-training: (1) AMR 3.0 (Knight et al., 2021) which originally contains 55,635 sentences in the training set while each sentence is associated with a manually annotated AMR graph. (2) New York Times Annotated Corpus (NYT) contains over 1.8 million articles that were published between 1987 to 2007. We randomly sample 55,635 sentences" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{14}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from articles published in 2004. Because NYT dataset does not have AMR annotations, we run a pre-trained AMR parser (Astudillo et al., 2020) to generate system AMR parsing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides taking the recent state-of-the-art event extraction studies (Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{15}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as baselines, we also compare our proposed STF with two other training strategies: (1) vanilla Self-Training (Rosenberg et al., 2005) which consists of two stages similar as STF but in the second stage takes each new event prediction from the unlabeled data with a probability higher than 0.9 based on the base event extraction model as a pseudo label and combines them with the labeled data to re-train the event extraction model; and (2) Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning (GradLRE) (Hu et al., 2021b). GradLRE encourages the gradients computed on the pseudo-labeled data to imitate the gradients computed on the labeled data by using the cosine distance between the two sources of gradients as a reward to perform policy gradi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13The detailed statistics of ACE05-E, ACE05- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , and EREEN are shown in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14To show the effect of unlabeled dataset vs labeled dataset, we sample the same number of the unlabeled sentences as AMR 3.0" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15The scores reported in (Nguyen et al., 2022) are not comparable in the table 3, as their results are not averaged across random seeds. We tried to report their averaged performance by running their model ourselves by contacting the authors, however, their code is publicly unavailable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10425" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ent reinforcement learning (Sutton et al., 1999). GradLRE showed improvements over other selftraining methods on low-resource relation extraction which is a similar task to argument role classification. Appendix C describes the training details for both baselines and our approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 206, + 176 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 206, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 206, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 230, + 199 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 230, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 230, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Evaluation of Scoring Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first evaluate the performance of the scoring model by measuring how well it distinguishes the correct and incorrect argument role predictions from an event extraction model. Specifically, we compute event predictions by running a fully trained event extraction model (i.e., OneIE or AMR-IE) on the validation and test sets of the three benchmark datasets. Based on the gold event annotations, we create a gold binary label (correct or incorrect) for each argument role prediction to indicate its correctness. For each event prediction, we pass it along with the corresponding AMR graph of the source sentence into the scoring model. If the correctness16 predicted by the scoring model agrees with the gold binary label, we treat it as a true prediction for scoring model, otherwise, a false prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To examine the impact of leveraging AMR in scoring model performance, we develop a baseline scoring model that shares the same structure with our proposed scoring model except that it does not take an AMR graph as an input. Specifically, the baseline scoring model just takes the event mention (triggers, arguments and argument labels) in order to measure the compatibility score. The baseline scoring model is essentially an ablation of our scoring model where the AMR path is absent. As shown in Table 2, the performance of our scoring model outperforms the baseline scoring model by 1.4-1.7 F-score on the test sets, demonstrating the effectiveness of AMR graph in characterizing the correctness of each event prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 1, we can observe that the semantics and structure of AMR paths can be easily mapped to argument role types. Sometimes, the even triggers are far from their arguments in plain text, but the AMR paths between them is short and informative. Another observation is that the scoring model tends to assign positive scores to argument roles that are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "more compatible with the AMR paths, although sometimes the scores for the gold argument roles are not the highest." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 512, + 137 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 512, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 512, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Evaluation of STF on Event Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 shows the event extraction results of both our approach and strong baselines" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{17}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For clarity, in the rest of the section, we refer to our proposed framework as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and our proposed framework with the baseline scoring model as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF_{W/O\\_AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We can see that, both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF_{W/O\\_AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improve the performance of the event extraction models on argument role classification while the vanilla self-training and GradLRE barely work, demonstrating the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback to the pseudo labels during self-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further analyze the reasons in terms of why the vanilla self-training and GradLRE do not work and notice that: due to the data scarcity, the base event extraction model (i.e., OneIE) performs poorly on many argument roles (lower than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F-score). Thus, the event predictions on unlabeled corpora can be very noisy and inaccurate. The model suffers from confirmation bias (Tarvainen and Valpola, 2017; Arazo et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2020): it accumulates errors and diverges when it's iteratively trained on such noisy pseudo labeled examples during self-training. In addition, we also notice that with self-training, the event extraction model becomes overconfident about its predictions. We check the averaged probability of all the argument role predictions on the unlabeled dataset which is 0.93. In such case, it is clear that the predicted probability can not faithfully reflect the correctness of the predictions, which is referred as the calibration error (Guo et al., 2017; Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana, 2005). Thus, the self-training process which relies on overconfident prediction can become highly biased and diverge from the initial baseline model. In GradLRE, the quality of the reward is highly depend on the averaged gradient direction computed during the supervised training process. However, due to the scarcity of the training data, the stored gradient direction can be unreliable. In addition, the gradient computed on the pseudo-labeled dataset with high reward is used to update the average gradient direction, which can introduce noises into the reward function. As seen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "17We show the variance of Base OneIE and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on three datasets in Appendix D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "16When the correctness score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c^{ij} > 0.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " computed by the scoring model, the predicted label is correct, otherwise, incorrect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10426" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 201 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 524, + 201 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Tell that to the family of Margaret Hassan, the school teacher who was brutally tortured and then slaughtered by these same guys, they aren't so bad are they Chris Matthews?AMR Path: [slaughtered, ARG1, teacher, MODIFIER, Margaret Hassan] \nPred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.99 \nGold Arg: Victim; Compatibility Score: 0.99
It is irritating enough to get sued by Sam Sloan; imagine how irritating it would be to get BEATEN by him because you have done something so egregious that a court is forced to agree with him.AMR Path: [sued, ARG0, Sam Sloan] \nPred Arg: Adjudicator; Compatibility Score: -0.99 \nGold Arg: Plaintiff; Compatibility Score: 0.67
Protests against the action aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were held in cities across Libya, Egypt and Lebanon, as well as in Amman, Damascus and the Gaza Strip.AMR Path: [Protests, ARG0, held, ARG1, were, PLACE, Amman] \nPred Arg: O; Compatibility Score: -0.52 \nGold Arg: Place; Compatibility Score: 0.74
Meanwhile Blair arrived in Washington late Wednesday for two days of talks with Bush at the Camp David presidential retreat.AMR Path: [arrived, OTHER, talks, PLACE, retreat] \nPred Arg: Destination; Compatibility Score: -0.94 \nGold Arg: O; Compatibility Score: 0.31
", + "image_path": "fb7e589b240913fec6524d2c8c49b6601ec1aa5efae0e611b82a55e6ffc35337.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 235, + 285, + 292 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 205, + 409, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 205, + 409, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 205, + 409, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Qualitative Results of the compatibility scores." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 235, + 285, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 235, + 285, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 235, + 285, + 292 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Scoring w/o AMR87.485.987.986.982.883.1
Scoring w/ AMR88.287.488.888.684.484.5
", + "image_path": "c7e99b7b0a468181dbbb19d1d85a332c555016c101192ad4433d6c837c6a2af3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: The F-score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the scoring models on various datasets. Scoring w/o AMR is the baseline scoring model without using AMR path. Scoring w/ AMR is the scoring model we proposed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in Table 3, the best models of self-training and GradLRE are on par or worse than the baseline approach, and these approaches show the detrimental effects as they show a continuous decline of the performance as training proceeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 595 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By considering AMR structure, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 595 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " encourages the event extraction models to predict event structures that are more compatible with AMR graphs. This claim is supported by Table 4, which compares the compatibility scores between the model without STF (OneIE baseline) and one with STF (OneIE +STF) framework on the three benchmark datasets. The compatibility scores are measured by the AMR based scoring models. We can clearly see that the compatibility scores measured on OneIE " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 595 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are much higher than the scores measured on base OneIE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lastly, we observe that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{OneIE + STF_{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " outperforms AMR-IE " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " STFAMR, even when AMR-IE performs better than OneIE baseline without STF. We argue the reason is that even though " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " does not need AMR parsing at inference time, AMR-IE does require AMR graphs at inference time which causes it to suffer from potential errors in the AMR parsing. On the other hand, OneIE trained by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF_{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " does not require AMR graphs at inference time, making it free from potential error propagation. Figure 2 shows more examples to illustrate how the feedback from AMR structures in STF helps to improve event predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 476, + 250 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 476, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 476, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Effect of Confidence Threshold" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intuitively, STF can leverage both certain (including compatible and incompatible) and uncertain pseudo labeled examples, as when the example is uncertain, the probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicted by the scoring model is close to 0.5 and thus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f^c(c)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is close to 0, making the gradients computed on this pseudolabeled example close to 0. To verify this claim, we conduct experiments with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by using the probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicted by the scoring model to determine certain and uncertain pseudo labels and analyzing their effect to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that we don't use the probability from the base event extraction model due to its calibration error (Guo et al., 2017)18. Specifically, we first select a threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s^{st} \\in \\{0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For each pseudo example, if the probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicted by the scoring model is higher than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s^{st}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (indicating a confident positive prediction) or lower than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 - s^{st}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (indicating a confident negative prediction), we will add it for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The higher the threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s^{st}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the most certain pseudo labels we can select for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As Figure 3 shows, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can even benefit from the less-confident pseudo labeled examples with threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s^{st}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " around 0.6, demonstrating that it can make better use of most of the predicted events from the unlabeled corpus for self-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 443, + 629 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 443, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 443, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Impact of AMR Parsing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 633, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 633, + 526, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 633, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "AMR annotations are very expensive and hard to obtain. To show the potential of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 633, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 633, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the scenarios where gold AMR parsing is not available, we conduct experiments by leveraging the NYT 2004 corpus as the external unlabeled corpus with system generated AMR parsing for self-training. As shown in Table 5, with system-based AMR, STF can also improve the performance of base event extraction models on all three benchmark datasets," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 471, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 471, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 471, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "18See detailed explanations in Appendix ??" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10427" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 292 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 292 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Tri-CArg-CTri-CArg-CTri-CArg-C
DyGIE (Wadden et al., 2019)69.748.867.342.7--
BERT_QA(Arg (Du and Cardie, 2020)72.453.370.648.357.039.2
FourIE (Nguyen et al., 2021)75.458.073.357.557.948.6
Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021)71.953.871.854.459.448.3
DEGREE (Hsu et al., 2022)73.355.870.956.357.149.6
Query Extract (Wang et al., 2022)--73.655.160.450.4
UIE (Lu et al., 2022)73.454.8----
Base OneIE (Lin et al., 2020)74.057.473.457.260.249.8
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.057.273.857.360.149.4
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.657.473.557.460.550.3
+STFW/O_AMR74.457.973.857.660.451.0
+STFAMR (ours)75.058.973.459.060.652.0
Base AMR-IE (Zhang and Ji, 2021)74.457.773.457.260.450.5
+self-training* (Rosenberg et al., 2005)74.257.473.457.160.150.2
+GradLRE* (Hu et al., 2021b)74.457.873.357.460.350.5
+STFW/O_AMR74.358.073.557.660.551.1
+STFAMR (ours)74.558.573.658.260.451.7
", + "image_path": "50afb9adaa8541baa599ec6b3d350f19dca91dd03f6a78bb58c305b974534648.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 512, + 513 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 525, + 331 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 525, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 525, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Test F1 scores of event trigger classification (Tri-C), and argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets. * denotes methods we re-implement to fit them into the event extraction task. Bold denotes the best performance in each local section and underline denotes the best global performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 512, + 513 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 512, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 512, + 513 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Sentence & Gold Event MentionsAMR PathBase OneIESTF
With marathon talks at the top world body failing late Thursday to reconcile French and Russian opposition to US-British war plans, the United States upped its military presence, deploying more missile-firing warships to the Red Sea. (Movement:Transport) deploying -> (Agent) -> United StatesARG0\ndeploying United StatesArg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: -1.0Arg Role:Agent\nCompatibility\nScore: 1.0
In Paris, the French media group said parent company chairman Jean - Rene Fourtou will replace Diller as chairman and chief executive of US unit. (Personnel:Start-Position) replace -> (Entity) -> unitand ARG2 Op Medium replace chairmanArg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.22Arg Role:Entity\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.93
In a verdict handed down on Saturday, the judge also ordered Ranjha to pay a fine of 50,000 rupees (about 870 US dollars), they said. (Justice:Fine) fine -> (Adjudicator) -> judgepay ARG1 ARG2 arg0 fine orderedArg Role:Entity\nCompatibility\nScore: -0.98Arg Role:Judiciary\nCompatibility\nScore: 1.0
The Daily Planet raised 3.5 million dollars (2.2 million US) in its initial public offering with one of the new 600 shareholders acquiring 1.0 million dollars worth of shares. (Transaction:Transfer-Money) acquiring -> (Other) -> shareholdersOther\nacquiring shareholdersArg Role:Buyer\nCompatibility\nScore: -1.0Arg Role:Other\nCompatibility\nScore: 0.72
", + "image_path": "d04d15a114d0ecb1202132a0049b79e02c5d9efc7cead052f49687eb55ef0b01.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 586, + 287, + 649 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 525, + 577 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 525, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Qualitative results of STF. Examples are taken from the development and test splits of ACE05-E. The orange tokens denote event triggers and blue tokens denote arguments. The AMR paths are between event triggers and arguments. The Base OneIE and STF fields show the predicted argument roles from two methods respectively. All the predictions from STF are correct. The compatibility scores are computed by the same scoring model. Note that OneIE and STF do not use AMR graph at inference time and AMR graph is shown just to provide intuitions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 586, + 287, + 649 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 586, + 287, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 586, + 287, + 649 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
DevTestDevTestDevTest
Base OneIE70.168.476.961.976.469.2
+ STFAMR72.270.880.264.078.075.1
", + "image_path": "3dee44e3e8590ae6cdfa7e3979c6ea0fdcf66b8be9afa729019bd1d02aff9cf5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and improve over the baseline scoring model without using AMR. The gap between STF with gold AMR and STF with system AMR is small, demonstrating that STF is more robust to the potential errors from AMR parsing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 584, + 511, + 648 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 687 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: The compatibility scores computed by scoring models on the development and test sets of the three benchmark datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 584, + 511, + 648 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 584, + 511, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 584, + 511, + 648 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ACE-EACE-E+ERE-EN
Base OneIE57.457.249.8
+ STF w/o AMR57.957.651.0
+ STF w/ sys_AMR58.258.151.4
+ STF w/ gold_AMR58.959.052.0
", + "image_path": "30792ec9cefc5dde0f0bfbcf53d68cb4a2c2811ff19afb8c676e80d9f8415c28.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 675 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Performance comparison between using gold AMR, system-labeled AMR, and not using AMR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 396, + 697 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 396, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 396, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most prior studies have been focusing on learning supervised models (Ji and Grishman, 2008; McClosky et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Feng et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016; Wadden et al., 2019; Du and Cardie, 2020; Lin et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10428" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 94, + 71, + 252, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 71, + 252, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 71, + 252, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 71, + 252, + 185 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "83bc4dff7b94ac1f1f7ba78588ca75a27372244079915783ffd2279c51c26539.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 225 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Performance change with different thresholds to select certain pseudo labeled examples for self-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 291, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2020; Zhang and Ji, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; wan; Nguyen et al., 2021) based on manually annotated event mentions. However, the performance of event extraction has been barely improved in recent years, and one of the main reasons lies in the data scarcity and imbalance of the existing event annotations. Several self-training and semi-supervised studies have been proposed to automatically enrich the event annotations. Huang and Riloff (2012) uses extraction patterns based on nouns that, by definition, play a specific role in an event, to automatically label more data. Li et al. (2014) proposes various event inference mechanisms to reveal additional missing event mentions. (Huang, 2020; Huang and Ji, 2020) propose semi-supervised learning to automatically induce new event types and their corresponding event mentions while the performance of old types is also improved. (Liao and Grishman, 2010, 2011b; Ferguson et al., 2018b) propose techniques to select a more relevant and informative corpus for self-training. All these studies cannot handle the noise introduced by the automatically labeled data properly. Compared with them, our STF framework leverages a scoring model to estimate the correctness of each pseudo-labeled example, which further guides the gradient learning of the event extraction model, thus it can efficiently mitigate the impact of the noisy pseudo-labeled examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-training has been studied for many years (Yarowsky, 1995; Riloff and Wiebe, 2003; Rosenberg et al., 2005) and widely adopted in many tasks including speech recognition (Kahn et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020), biomedical imaging (You et al., 2022a,b), parsing (McClosky et al., 2006; McClosky and Charniak, 2008), and pretraining (Du et al., 2021). Self-Training suffers from inaccurate pseudo labels (Arazo et al., 2020, 2019; Hu et al., 2021a) especially when the teacher" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "model is trained on insufficient and unbalanced datasets. To address this problem, (Pham et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021a; Hu et al., 2021a) propose to utilize the performance of the student model on the held-out labeled data as a Meta-Learning objective to update the teacher model or improve the pseudo-label generation process. Hu et al. (2021b) leverage the cosine distance between gradients computed on labeled data and pseudo-labeled data as feedback to guide the self-training process. (Mehta et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2021) leverage the span of named entities as constraints to improve semi-supervised semantic role labeling and syntactic parsing, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 381, + 285 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 381, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 381, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 526, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose a self-training with feedback (STF) framework to overcome the data scarcity issue of the event extract task. The STF framework estimates the correctness of each pseudo event prediction based on its compatibility with the corresponding AMR structure, and takes the compatibility score as feedback to guide the learning of the event extraction model on each pseudo label during self-training. We conduct experiments on three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+, and ERE, and prove that STF is effective and general as it can improve any base event extraction models with significant gains. We further demonstrate that STF can improve event extraction models on large-scale unlabeled corpora even without high-quality AMR annotations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 520, + 365, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 520, + 365, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 520, + 365, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method utilizes the AMR annotations as additional training signals to alleviate the data scarcity problem in the event extraction task. In this problem setup, generally speaking, AMR annotations are more expensive than event extraction annotations. Nonetheless, in reality, the AMR dataset is much bigger than any existing event extraction dataset, and AMR parsers usually have higher performance than event extraction models. Leveraging existing resources to improve event extraction without requiring additional cost is a feasible and practical direction. Our work has demonstrated the effectiveness of leveraging the feedback from AMR to improve event argument extraction. However, it's still under-explored what additional information and tasks can be leveraged as feedback to improve trigger detection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10429" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We did not have quantitative results for the alignment between AMR and event graphs. The authors randomly sampled 50 event graphs from ACE05-E and found 41 are aligned with their AMR graphs based on human judgment. In future work, more systematic studies should be conducted to evaluate the alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There is a large gap between the validation and testing datasets in terms of label distribution on ACE05-E and ACE05-E+. We observe that performance improvement on the validation set sometimes leads to performance decreasing on the test set. Both the validation and test dataset miss certain labels for event trigger types and argument role types. The annotations in the training set, validation set, and test set are scarce and highly unbalanced, which causes the low performance on trained models. We argue that a large-scale more balanced benchmark dataset in the event extraction domain can lead to more solid conclusions and facilitate research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 166, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 166, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 166, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers and area chair for their valuable time and constructive comments. This research is based upon work supported by the Amazon Research Award. Jay-Yoon Lee was supported in part by the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 489, + 127, + 502 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 489, + 127, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 489, + 127, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 291, + 573 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 291, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 291, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2019. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. CoRR, abs/1908.02983." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 580, + 291, + 646 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 580, + 291, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 580, + 291, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Arazo, Diego Ortega, Paul Albert, Noel E. O'Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. 2020. Pseudolabeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, IJCNN 2020, Glasgow, United Kingdom, July 19-24, 2020, pages 1-8. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 291, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ramón Fernandez Astudillo, Miguel Ballesteros, Tahira Naseem, Austin Blodgett, and Radu Florian. 2020. Transition-based parsing with stack-transformers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 1001-1007. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, LAW-ID@ACL 2013, August 8-9, 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, pages 178-186. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Y. Chen, L. Xu, K. Liu, D. Zeng, and J. Zhao. 2015. Event extraction via dynamic multi-pooling convolutional neural networks. In Proc. ACL2015." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zheng Chen and Heng Ji. 2009. Can one language bootstrap the other: a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2009 Workshop on Semi-Supervised Learning for Natural Language Processing, pages 66-74." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 260, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 260, + 526, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 260, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shumin Deng, Ningyu Zhang, Luoqiu Li, Chen Hui, Tou Huaixiao, Mosha Chen, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Ontoed: Low-resource event detection with ontology embedding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2828-2839." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 466 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 526, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingfei Du, Edouard Grave, Belize Gunel, Vishrav Chaudhary, Onur Celebi, Michael Auli, Veselin Stoyanov, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Self-training improves pre-training for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5408-5418. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 591, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 591, + 525, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 591, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinya Du and Claire Cardie. 2020. Event extraction by answering (almost) natural questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 671-683, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaocheng Feng, Lifu Huang, Duyu Tang, Bing Qin, Heng Ji, and Ting Liu. 2016. A language-independent neural network for event detection. In The 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page 66." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018a. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10430" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James Ferguson, Colin Lockard, Daniel S. Weld, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018b. Semi-supervised event extraction with paraphrase clusters. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 359-364. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 291, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 291, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1321-1330. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 291, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I-Hung Hsu, Kuan-Hao Huang, Elizabeth Boschee, Scott Miller, Prem Natarajan, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. DEGREE: A data-efficient generation-based event extraction model. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1890-1908. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 291, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Fukun Ma, Chenyao Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021a. Semi-supervised relation extraction via incremental meta self-training. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 487-496. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 291, + 601 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 291, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 291, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Yawen Yang, Xiaohe Li, Li Lin, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021b. Gradient imitation reinforcement learning for low resource relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 2737-2746. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 632 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifu Huang. 2020. Cold-start universal information extraction. Ph.D. thesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifu Huang, Taylor Cassidy, Xiaocheng Feng, Heng Ji, Clare Voss, Jiawei Han, and Avirup Sil. 2016. Liberal event extraction and event schema induction. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 258-268." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifu Huang and Heng Ji. 2020. Semi-supervised new event type induction and event detection. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 718-724." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 526, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruihong Huang and Ellen Riloff. 2012. Bootstrapped training of event extraction classifiers. In EACL 2012, 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, April 23-27, 2012, pages 286-295. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Heng Ji and Ralph Grishman. 2008. Refining event extraction through cross-document inference. In Proceedings of ACL-08: Hlt, pages 254-262." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 526, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lu Jiang, Zhengyuan Zhou, Thomas Leung, Li-Jia Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Mentornet: Learning data-driven curriculum for very deep neural networks on corrupted labels. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2309-2318. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 526, + 413 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 526, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 526, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Kahn, Ann Lee, and Awni Hannun. 2020. Self-training for end-to-end speech recognition. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7084-7088." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Knight, Bianca Badarau, Laura Baranescu, Claire Bonial, Madalina Bardocz, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Daniel Marcu, Martha Palmer, Tim O'Gorman, et al. 2021. Abstract meaning representation (amr) annotation release 3.0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 484, + 526, + 527 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 484, + 526, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 484, + 526, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In ICML." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 535, + 526, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 535, + 526, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 535, + 526, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peifeng Li, Qiaoming Zhu, and Guodong Zhou. 2014. Employing event inference to improve semi-supervised chinese event extraction. In COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference: Technical Papers, August 23-29, 2014, Dublin, Ireland, pages 2161-2171. ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 526, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qi Li, Heng Ji, and Liang Huang. 2013. Joint event extraction via structured prediction with global features. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2013, 4-9 August 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 73-82. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2010. Filtered ranking for bootstrapping in event extraction. In COLING 2010, 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China, pages 680-688. Tsinghua University Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10431" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011a. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? a case study on event extraction. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 260-265." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 289, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 289, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 289, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shasha Liao and Ralph Grishman. 2011b. Can document selection help semi-supervised learning? A case study on event extraction. In The 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Conference, 19-24 June, 2011, Portland, Oregon, USA - Short Papers, pages 260-265. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 289, + 326 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 289, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 289, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 437 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 289, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 517, + 289, + 627 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 517, + 289, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 517, + 289, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2Event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2795–2806, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 289, + 727 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 289, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 289, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D. McClosky, M. Surdeanu, and C. D. Manning. 2011. Event extraction as dependency parsing. In ACL, pages 1626-1635." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David McClosky and Eugene Charniak. 2008. Self-training for biomedical parsing. In ACL 2008, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 15-20, 2008, Columbus, Ohio, USA, Short Papers, pages 101-104. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 225 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David McClosky, Eugene Charniak, and Mark Johnson. 2006. Effective self-training for parsing. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, June 4-9, 2006, New York, New York, USA. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 311 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Jay Yoon Lee, and Jaime G. Carbonell. 2018. Towards semi-supervised learning for deep semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4958-4963. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 524, + 419 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 524, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 524, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minh Van Nguyen, Viet Lai, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2021. Cross-task instance representation interactions and label dependencies for joint information extraction with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 27-38. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 524, + 527 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 524, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 524, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minh Van Nguyen, Bonan Min, Franck Dernoncourt, and Thien Nguyen. 2022. Joint extraction of entities, relations, and events via modeling inter-instance and inter-label dependencies. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4363-4374, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 536, + 524, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 536, + 524, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 536, + 524, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thien Huu Nguyen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ralph Grishman. 2016. Joint event extraction via recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 300-309." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 524, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 524, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 611, + 524, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. 2005. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. pages 625-632." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 524, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 524, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 524, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel S. Park, Yu Zhang, Ye Jia, Wei Han, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Bo Li, Yonghui Wu, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Improved noisy student training for automatic speech recognition. CoRR, abs/2005.09629." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 707, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 707, + 524, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 707, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hieu Pham, Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Meta pseudo labels. CoRR, abs/2003.10580." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sudha Rao, Daniel Marcu, Kevin Knight, and Hal Daumé III. 2017. Biomedical event extraction using Abstract Meaning Representation. In BioNLP 2017," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10432" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "pages 126-135, Vancouver, Canada., Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ellen Riloff and Janyce Wiebe. 2003. Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2003, Sapporo, Japan, July 11-12, 2003." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chuck Rosenberg, Martial Hebert, and Henry Schneiderman. 2005. Semi-supervised self-training of object detection models. In 7th IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision / IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing (WACV/MOTION 2005), 5-7 January 2005, Breckenridge, CO, USA, pages 29-36. IEEE Computer Society." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 330 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard S. Sutton, David A. McAllester, Satinder Singh, and Yishay Mansour. 1999. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12, [NIPS Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, November 29 - December 4, 1999], pages 1057-1063. The MIT Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. 2017. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 1195-1204." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 290, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. CoRR, abs/1706.03762." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 291, + 579 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 291, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 291, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5783-5788. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sijia Wang, Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Lichao Sun, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Query and extract: Refining event extraction as type-oriented binary decoding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 169-182. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaqing Wang, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Haoda Chu, Yuancheng Tu, Ming Wu, Jing Gao, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021a. Meta self-training for few-shot neural sequence labeling. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 1737-1747. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 749, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 749, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 749, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziqi Wang, Xiaozhi Wang, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Lei Hou, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Juanzi Li, and Jie Zhou." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 634 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2021b. CLEVE: contrastive pre-training for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6283-6297. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 171, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 171, + 525, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 171, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 215, + 526, + 326 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 215, + 526, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 215, + 526, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay-Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 4818-4831. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 336, + 525, + 402 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 336, + 525, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 336, + 525, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Yarowsky. 1995. Unsupervised word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 26-30 June 1995, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, Proceedings, pages 189-196. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers / ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 525, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Fenglin Liu, Haoran Su, Xiaoran Zhang, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022a. Mine your own anatomy: Revisiting medical image segmentation with extremely limited labels. CoRR, abs/2209.13476." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenyu You, Weicheng Dai, Lawrence H. Staib, and James S. Duncan. 2022b. Bootstrapping semi-supervised medical image segmentation with anatomical-aware contrastive distillation. CoRR, abs/2206.02307." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 526, + 634 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 526, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 526, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zixuan Zhang and Heng Ji. 2021. Abstract meaning representation guided graph encoding and decoding for joint information extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 39-49. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 648, + 461, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 648, + 461, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 648, + 461, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Groups of AMR Relations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 671, + 525, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 671, + 525, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 671, + 525, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7 shows the new categories and labels of AMR relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 710, + 454, + 722 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 710, + 454, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 710, + 454, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B The Statistics of Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7 shows the statistics of the three public benchmark datasets, including ACE05-E, ACE05-E+ and ERE-EN." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10433" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 400 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 400 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 400 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Group LabelAMR Relations
ARG0ARG0
ARG1ARG1
ARG2ARG2
ARG3ARG3
ARG4ARG4
Destinationdestination
Sourcesource
Instrumentinstrument
Beneficiarybeneficiary
Prep rolesrole starts with prep
Op rolesrole start with op
Entity rolewiki, name
Arg-X roleARG5, ARG6, ARG7 ARG8, ARG9
Place rolelocation, path, direction
Medium rolemanner, poss, medium, topic
Modifier roledomain, mod, example
Part-whole rolepart, consist, subevent, subset
Time rolecalendar, century, day, dayperiod, decade, era, month, quarter, season,timezone, weekday, year, year2, time
Otherspurpose, li, quant, polarity, condition, extent, degree, cnt1, cnt2, ARG5, cnt3, concession, ord, unit, mode, value, frequency, polite, age, accompanier, cnt4, cnt10, cnt5, cnt6, cnt7, cnt8, cnt9, cnt11, scale, conj-as-if, rel
", + "image_path": "fc1b5cd3e84b4f7c0e5d5edc67575304f39a5259b3154597d947de24780820b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 289, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 289, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 289, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: The 19 groups of the AMR relations used in our paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 448, + 175, + 462 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 448, + 175, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 448, + 175, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Training Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For all experiments, we use Roberta-large as the language model which has 355M parameters. We train all of our models on a single A100 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Base OneIE We follow the same training process as (Lin et al., 2020) to train the OneIE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters the same as (Lin et al., 2020). For each dataset we train 3 OneIE models and report the averaged performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Base AMR-IE We follow the same training process as (Zhang and Ji, 2021) to train the AMR-IE model. We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the model for 80 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-3 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 16. We keep all other hyperparameters exactly the same as (Zhang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and Ji, 2021). For each dataset we train 3 AMR-IE models and report the averaged performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Model We use BertAdam as the optimizer and train the score model for 60 epochs with 1e-5 as learning rate and weight decay for the language encoder and 1e-4 as learning rate and weight decay for other parameters. The batch size is set to 10. The scoring model contains two self-attention layers. We train 3 scoring models and reported the averaged performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 526, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Training For self-training we use SGD as optimizer and continue to train the converged base OneIE model for 30 epochs with batch size 12, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters except the CRF layers and global features which are frozen. For self-training, we use 0.9 as the threshold to select the confident predictions as pseudo-labeled instances. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 525, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning For GradLRE, we use the BertAdam as the optimizer with batch size 16, learning rate 1e-5 and weight decay 1e-5 for the language encoder and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 1e-3 for other parameters to first train OneIE model for 60 epochs. The standard gradient direction vector is computed by averaging the gradient vector on each optimization step. Then following the same training process in the original paper, we perform 10 more epochs of Gradient Imitation Reinforcement Learning, and set the threshold for high reward as 0.5. For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Training with Feedback from Abstract Meaning Representation For STF, we first train the OneIE model on the labeled dataset for 10 epochs and continue to train it on the mixture of unlabeled data and labeled dataset for 70 more epochs with batch size 10, learning rate 1e-4, weight decay for the language encoder as 1e-5, and learning rate 1e-3 and weight decay 5e-5 for all other parameters. We leverage a linear scheduler to compute the value for the loss combining ratio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{\\text{epoch}}{70}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For all the experiments, we train 3 models and report the averaged performance. For model selection, we propose a new method called Compatibility-Score Based Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10434" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 69, + 459, + 140 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 69, + 459, + 140 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 69, + 459, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 69, + 459, + 140 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# Sent17,17292383219,24090267614,7361,2091,163
# Entities29,0062,4513,01747,5253,4223,67338,8643,3203,291
# Events4,2024504034,4194684246,208525551
", + "image_path": "7bbde690a6a9623a7614cdab2f98534ad95a859db81ab4a92fc99e5497c0e3a9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Selection which is discussed in the following paragraph." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The data scarcity problem not only appears in the training data of ACE-05, ACE-05+ and ERE-EN but appears in the development set. For example, in ACE-05, the development set only contains only 603 labeled argument roles for 22 argument role classes and 7 argument role classes have lees than 10 instances. To alleviate this problem, we propose to leverage part of the large-scale unlabeled dataset as a held-out development set. At the end of each epoch, instead of evaluating the event extraction model on the development set, we run the event extraction model on the unlabeled held-out development set to make event predictions and run the scoring model on the event predictions to compute compatibility scores. We utilize the averaged compatibility scores computed on all instances in the unlabeled held-out development datasets as the model selection criteria. We argue this is another application of the scoring model since its goal is to evaluate the correctness of event predictions. The size of the unlabeled held-out development set is 2,000." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 279, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 279, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 279, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Results of Base OneIE and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 279, + 557 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show the F1 scores of Base OneIE and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+ \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on three benchmark datasets with variances denoted. As one can see that Base OneIE and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+ \\mathrm{STF}_{\\mathrm{AMR}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " have similar variances on all three datasets except ACE05-E+. We leave how to reduce the variance of argument role classification to future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 287, + 724 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 154, + 427, + 166 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 154, + 427, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 154, + 427, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: The statistics of the three benchmarks used in our paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 287, + 724 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 287, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 287, + 724 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ACE05-EACE05-E+ERE-EN
Arg-CArg-CArg-C
Base OneIE57.4 ±1.2357.2 ±0.3249.8 ±0.45
+STFAMR (ours)58.9 ±1.2859.0 ±1.0352.0 ±0.40
", + "image_path": "7a4bfab9812b59ee799ccfcd8fbadfc128731bfaa48a46319f6ee68d63d5800a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 726, + 289, + 750 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 726, + 289, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 726, + 289, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Test F1 scores of argument role classification (Arg-C) on three benchmark datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10435" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 414, + 243 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We are not aware of potential risks in our work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 414, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 251, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 251, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 251, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 270, + 87, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 270, + 87, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 270, + 87, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 463, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We don't introduce new artifacts in the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? not applicable" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? \nwe didn't collect data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? not applicable" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 663, + 87, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 663, + 87, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 663, + 87, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? appendix C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10436" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 235 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? \nappendix C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? \nappendix C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? not applicable" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 523, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10437" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_content_list.json b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fee173ba913e01d990d2ad865ce7222804150f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2616 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 262, + 79, + 734, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yingjie Niu* 1,2, Linyi Yang* 3,4, Ruihai Dong1,2, Yue Zhang 3,4", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 233, + 104, + 766, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1 School of Computer Science, University College Dublin", + "2 SFI Centre for Research Training in Machine Learning" + ], + "bbox": [ + 268, + 135, + 737, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ Institute of Advanced Technology, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 168, + 806, + 185 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{4}$ School of Engineering, Westlake University", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 185, + 687, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yingjie.niu}@ucdconnect.ie,{ruihai.dong}@ucd.ie", + "bbox": [ + 260, + 203, + 746, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yanglinyi, zhangyue}@westlake.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 221, + 690, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There have been growing concerns regarding the out-of-domain generalization ability of natural language processing (NLP) models, particularly in question-answering (QA) tasks. Current synthesized data augmentation methods for QA are hampered by increased training costs. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach that combines prompting methods and linear probing then fine-tuning strategy, which does not entail additional cost. Our method has been theoretically and empirically shown to be effective in enhancing the generalization ability of both generative and discriminative models. Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, with an average increase in F1 score of $4.5\\% - 7.9\\%$ . Furthermore, our method can be easily integrated into any pre-trained models and offers a promising solution to the under-explored cross-domain QA task. We release our source code at Github*.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 580, + 258, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question answering (QA) models (Oh et al., 2016; Trischler et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2021; Gu et al., 2021) aim to answer passage-based questions automatically with the help of facts in a given context (sometimes referred to as machine reading comprehension (Dua et al., 2019; Sen and Saffari, 2020)). Over the last few years, pre-trained models have achieved great progress on a variety of large-scale datasets, e.g., SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017), DROP (Dua et al., 2019), CoRA (Asai et al., 2021), and NarrativeQA (Kocisky et al., 2018). However, existing methods can suffer significant performance degradation when the tuned system is directly applied to out-of-domain examples (Gururangan et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020; Tripuraneni et al., 2020; Kaushik et al., 2020; Malinin et al., 2021; Varshney et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 607, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7f0d2b9ce3468322c579bb135456a1a6ff371208c1001a88745c5fdba38d0b11.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Cross-domain QA task consists of three datasets from different domains." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 249, + 873, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper focuses on a novel cross-domain QA task where we assume models trained on the source domain can be generalized to the target domain, where no labeled or unlabeled data is available. As shown in Figure 1, QA pairs from different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions. For example, in the technology field, the context can frequently contain \"e-commerce\" and \"network\". While in the pharmaceutical sector, the context can consist of \"COVID-19\", \"vaccine\", and \"diagnostic\" more frequently. Cross-domain QA poses significant challenges to real-world scenarios, and it is proved that even large-scale pre-trained models (Gu et al., 2021) can still encounter performance degradation under domain generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 449, + 884, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these drawbacks, we introduce a novel cross-domain QA setting, focusing on the methods that consistently improve the domain generalization performance without additional computational costs. Intuitively, cross-domain QA can benefit from prompting in which instances from different domains can share a unified set of label words. Thus, no additional parameters can carry domain-specific information to hinder the OOD generalization for an unseen domain. However, using the prompt method solely could increase the risk of overfitting and bring limited benefits, as prompt templates are fixed, which may be learned as spurious features by models. Thus, we consider", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*These authors contributed equally to this work.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 891, + 430, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "\\*https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 440, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1298", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1298-1313", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 766, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "using the linear-probing and then fine-tuning (LP-FT) strategy to reduce the reliance between prompt patterns with labels by freezing pre-trained parameters. In this way, LP-FT can benefit cross-domain QA by preventing pre-trained features from being distorted when tuning on a specific domain (Kumar et al., 2022). Prompt-based LP-FT method does not introduce new parameters, so the performance decay when training on a source domain and testing on a new target domain can be reduced without entailing additional cost.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Under the LP-FT framework, we introduce four prompt types to extract invariant features in different domains: question type, sentiment, named entity, and key phrase. These prompts aim to increase the question similarity and benefit the model in generalizing to out-of-domain questions. Existing prompting methods have not been applied to natural language processing tasks beyond simple fine-tuning settings. To enable promoting methods to adapt LP-FT, we theoretically prove that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for prompting methods (Section 3.3).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 263, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We experiment on three different domain datasets (Figure 1). Results show that our prompt-based LP-FT method significantly improves the performance of cross-domain QA models on either the standard hold-out or OOD tests, with an average increase in F1 of $4.5\\% -7.9\\%$ compared to baselines. Also, our method consistently outperforms the standard fine-tuning strategy on both discriminative and generative models. Besides, we provide an in-depth analysis of the ablation study towards the OOD robustness that details the efficacy of LP-FT and prompting methods, respectively. To our knowledge, we are the first to present a new zero-shot cross-domain QA task and propose a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method. All resources are available at https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 490, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 728, + 268, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Out-of-domain performance degradation has attracted considerable research interest recently. A line of work (Morgan and Winship, 2015; Wang and Culotta, 2021; Kaushik et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Malkiel and Wolf, 2021; Lu et al., 2022) aims to improve models' generalization ability on text classification. Differently, we investigate the OOD generalization problem on the QA task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lewis et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2021) find that $60 - 70\\%$ of test-time answers of popular open-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "domain QA benchmark datasets exist in the training set, and it is proved that training set memory plays a vital role in testing. Liu et al. (2021a) empirically prove that language models suffer performance degradation when there is no train-test set overlapping. To test the actual generalization ability of QA models, several novel QA datasets have been constructed and released, focusing on evaluating QA models on out-of-domain generalization ability (Gu et al., 2021). Yang et al. (2022) present the first cross-domain QA dataset and observe a performance decay problem regarding the OOD test. Many existing methods intend to improve the OOD performance of QA models through data augmentation. Yue et al. (2022) introduce a synthesizing question-answer pairs method to improve target-domain QA performance. In contrast, we propose a prompt-based method combined with linear probing and then fine-tuning, which is more computationally efficient and does not require target domain annotations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt-based methods on pre-trained language models have received considerable research interest. The paradigm \"pre-train, prompt, and predict\" replaces the \"pre-train, fine-tune\" procedure for improved few-shot learning (Liu et al., 2021b). Prompt-based methods have been applied not only in sentence-level few-shot learning tasks, such as named entity recognition (Ma et al., 2021) but also in sophisticated learning tasks like natural language understanding (Wang et al., 2022). However, little work applies prompts on the cross-domain QA tasks (Jacovi et al., 2021). We leverage the fixed-format characteristic of the prompt to extract the invariant features in the changing dataset to enhance the OOD generalization of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 429, + 885, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instead of fine-tuning, linear probing is an alternative to tuning a pre-trained model on a downstream task. Liu et al. (2019a); Tripuraneni et al. (2020) examine the representations produced by several recent pre-trained language models and find that linear models trained on top of frozen contextual representations are competitive with state-of-the-art task-specific fine-tuned models in many cases but fail in tasks where fine-grained language knowledge is required. Kumar et al. (2022) theoretically prove that the linear-probing then fine-tuning (LP-FT) approach can enhance the OOD generalization ability of pre-trained models. In our work, we are the first to provide theoretical evidence that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1299", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4e7641f19c292317014c7afabe91abaae50e0248ae859b0aaf28cb16044dfa13.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The workflow of the prompt-based linear-probing then fine-tuning strategy. The bottom part shows the template engineering process where we add a prompt for each sample. The middle part represents the feature space of the Prompt LP-FT model and baseline models. Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains. The top part demonstrates the linear probing and then fine-tuning process. The \"Q\", \"C\" and \"P\" represent \"Question\", \"Context\" and \"Prompt\" in a sample, respectively (in bottom)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 142, + 82, + 853, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "prompting methods in NLP.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 519, + 324, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 218, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2 illustrates the workflow of the Prompt-based LP-FT method. We first generate a prompt for each input sample through template engineering and prompt designing (§3.1). Then, the source domain dataset with prompts is used for linear probing and then fine-tuning (§3.2) a pre-trained model. (top). Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains (middle). The feature space demonstrates how the prompt-based method and the LP-FT strategy benefit the cross-domain QA, respectively, and also shows the motivation for using prompt-based LP-FT to benefit the cross-domain QA task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 577, + 489, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Template Designing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 864, + 317, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We take a Template Engineering process to look for a prompt template that results in the most ef", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "fective performance on a given task. The template designing rules can be found in appendix A.2. The prompt design is inspired by the process of a nonnative speaker (or a non-professional reader) reading articles (or professional documents) and answering questions. They may lack some depth of knowledge, such as the meanings of less commonly used words (or domain-specific knowledge). Language models may encounter similar situations in the cross-domain QA task. We design four types of templates. Figure 3 gives an example of a question-type template. Other template designs can be found in appendix A.3. Below, we take the question-type template as an example to illustrate the template designing process:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 519, + 884, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question-type Templates. Suppose that for a given question, \"Why have we increased our projections for cancer drug Loxo305 and diabetes drug tripeptide is useful?\", a human tester tries to find the answer from the article. In the question, users might not understand tokens such as Loxo305, diabetes, tripeptide, etc. However, if the user is aware that the question might be about \"Why something is useful?\", then she/he can search", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 774, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1300", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/025c03a4b4533ea8239ebbfc5ef58f9d07dffe6188147a5d5f5ac670f80347ee.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Generating question-type prompts" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 89, + 460, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "some keywords such as because, as, and since from the article and the context following these words, which might help her/him to find the correct answer. For each type of question, some specific words might help to locate their answers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 279, + 487, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We consider four typical types of questions. For each question type, we first find out the most related words with it, such as because, since with the question type why, by measuring Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) scores (Bouma, 2009) between candidate words and the question type. Afterward, we select the 50 most related words to generate a prompt for each question.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 359, + 487, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Loss Functions. For a prompt-based QA task, given a question-context-prompt tuple $(Q,C,P)$ , we calculate the probability of each word $c_{n}$ being the start position or end position of the correct answer for discriminative models as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 488, + 489, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np \\left(c _ {n} \\mid Q, C, P\\right) = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(W _ {\\text {h e a d}} h _ {c _ {n}} + b _ {\\text {h e a d}}\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 576, + 487, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $Q \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_q \\times d_{word}}$ , $C \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_c \\times d_{word}}$ , and $P \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_p \\times d_{word}}$ denote the question, context and prompt, respectively. $s_q / s_c / s_p$ and $d_{word}$ denote the question/context/prompt sentence length and the word embedding dimension, respectively. $h_{c_n}$ denotes the feature representation of $(Q, C, P)$ concatenated on the first dimension produced by a pretrained model, $W_{head} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{\\nu \\times d_h}$ and $b_{head} \\in \\mathbb{R}^\\nu$ . $d_h$ denotes the dimension of $h_{c_n}$ and $\\nu$ denotes the length of answer sentence. The loss function is the sum of the cross entropy for start and end positions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 599, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {d i s} = - \\sum_ {n = 1} ^ {m} \\log p \\left(c _ {n} | Q, C, P\\right) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 789, + 485, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $m$ is the number of words in $C$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 401, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We regard the QA task as a Seq2Seq generation task for generative models and use the LM loss,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 485, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {g e n}} = - \\sum_ {n} \\log p \\left(c _ {n} \\mid c _ {< n}, Q, C, P\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 890, + 485, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $c_{< n}$ denotes the generated words.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 808, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Linear Probing then Fine-tuning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 111, + 813, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The OOD generalization problem is defined as follows (Kumar et al., 2022): given a predictor $f$ : to map inputs $X$ to outputs $Y$ . For some loss function $\\mathcal{L}$ , the predictor in-domain performance $L_{id}$ and out-of-domain performance $L_{ood}$ are:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 131, + 882, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {i d} (f) = \\underset {(X, \\mathbf {y}) \\sim p _ {i d}} {\\mathbb {E}} [ \\mathcal {L} (f (X)), \\mathbf {y} ] \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 583, + 223, + 878, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {o o d} (f) = \\underset {(X, \\mathbf {y}) \\sim p _ {o o d}} {\\mathbb {E}} [ \\mathcal {L} (f (X)), \\mathbf {y} ]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 254, + 823, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where the predictor is evaluated on test samples $(X, \\mathbf{y})$ drawn from in-domain distribution $P_{id}$ , and also evaluated on test samples $(X, \\mathbf{y})$ drawn from out-of-domain distribution $P_{ood}$ . To simplify the formula representation, in this paper, $X$ represents the question, and context ( $Q$ and $C$ ); $\\mathbf{y}$ indicates the answer sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 287, + 882, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The final predictor $f$ is parameterized as a feature extractor and a linear \"head\". Hence, the training loss is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 400, + 884, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\mathcal {L}} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = \\left| \\left| X B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v} - \\mathbf {y} \\right| \\right| _ {2} ^ {2} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 594, + 458, + 880, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{v}$ denotes the linear head and $B$ denotes the feature extractor. We assume that the initial feature extractor $B_{0}$ is obtained from the pre-trained model, considering two methods to learn a predictor $f_{\\mathbf{v},B}$ : 1) linear probing where $B = B_{0}$ and the linear head is obtained by minimizing some loss on the training data (Liu et al., 2019a), and 2) fine-tuning where both $\\mathbf{v}$ and $B$ are updated on the training data with $B$ initialized as $B_{0}$ (Kumar et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 491, + 882, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Theoretical Proof", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 695, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We prove that linear probing and then fine-tuning improves the results for prompt tuning by extending the proof for standard fine-tuning (Kumar et al., 2022). In particular, the derivative of Eq 5 with respect to the feature extractor $B$ is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 667, + 882, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\nabla_ {B} \\hat {\\mathcal {L}} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \\mathbf {v} \\left(\\mathbf {y} - X B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v}\\right) ^ {\\top} X \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 758, + 880, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For Eq 6, if $U$ is a sample extracted from a direction orthogonal subspace to the training subspace, $\\nabla_B\\hat{\\mathcal{L}} (\\mathbf{v},B)U = 0$ , the training process on $X$ will not decrease the loss on the orthogonal subspace. However, the gradient is not zero for directions in the ID subspace. This explains why fine-tuning can achieve a higher ID performance but a lower OOD performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1301", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our proposed prompt-based method, the prompt $P$ is concatenated to the original $X$ (along the sentence length dimension), and the equation can be expressed below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\nabla_ {B} \\hat {\\mathcal {L}} _ {p} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \\mathbf {v} (Y - (X + P) B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v}) ^ {\\top} (X + P) \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 161, + 487, + 196 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where assume that $P$ is not orthogonal to the $X$ or its orthogonal subspace. Consequently, we have $\\nabla_B\\hat{\\mathcal{L}}_p(\\mathbf{v},B)(U + P)\\neq 0$ . In this way, the training process on $X$ with prompt $P$ would modify the loss on the OOD samples with the prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 197, + 485, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the linear probing and then fine-tuning method, the OOD error of fine-tuning is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 278, + 485, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\sqrt {L _ {o o d} \\left(\\mathbf {v} _ {f t} , B _ {f t} (t)\\right)} \\geq \\sigma \\frac {\\operatorname* {m i n} \\left(\\varphi , \\varphi^ {2} / \\left| \\left| w _ {*} \\right| \\right| _ {2}\\right)}{\\left(1 + \\left| \\left| w _ {*} \\right| \\right| _ {2}\\right) ^ {2}} \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 323, + 485, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{v}_{ft}$ and $B_{ft}$ are the linear head and feature extractor after fine-tuning. $\\sigma$ is a fixed parameter (Kumar et al., 2022) related to $B_0$ . $w_{*} = \\mathbf{v}_{*}B_{*},\\mathbf{v}_{*}$ and $B_{*}$ are the optimal parameters. $\\varphi$ is the initial head alignment error $\\varphi = |(\\mathbf{v}_0^\\top \\mathbf{v}_*)^2 -(\\mathbf{v}_*^\\top \\mathbf{v}_*)^2|$ . In order to decrease the OOD error, the head $\\mathbf{v}_0$ has to be as close to the $\\mathbf{v}_{*}$ as possible. It is proved that initializing the head with $\\mathbf{v}_{lp}$ (LP-FT) can decrease the OOD error (Kumar et al., 2022) more than random initializing head with $\\mathbf{v}_0$ (FT) since $\\mathbf{v}_0$ is far away from $\\mathbf{v}_{*}$ . Converting input $X$ to $X + P$ does not affect $\\frac{\\min(\\varphi,\\varphi^2/||w_*||_2)}{(1+||w_*||_2)^2}$ , implying the LP-FT strategy can be applied after we introduce $P$ . As a result, the Prompt-based LP-FT strategy is used to avoid distorting pre-trained features.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 487, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 630, + 321, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce experiments' datasets, baseline methods, and evaluation metrics in this section.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 657, + 489, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 226, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the proposed method on three datasets: Causal QA (Yang et al., 2022), SQuAD 1.1 (Weissenborn et al., 2017) and NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017). All datasets are in English. Domain-related information is provided in the CausalQA dataset, which is valuable for cross-domain question-answering tasks. For the in-domain test, we experiment on the whole CausalQA dataset before splitting into domainsdomain-independent QA) and on each particular domain after splitting into domains. The distribution change and word overlap between datasets can be found in appendix A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the OOD test, we have two experiment setups: Setup 1) we split the CausalQA dataset, based on the domain information, into mutually exclusive training/validation/testing sets in the same ratio of 8:1:1. Setup 2) we conduct OOD tests across different datasets from different domains. In cross-domain QA, both the training and validation sets of the source domain are used in the training process for hyperparameter searching. The testing sets of source and target domains are used for in-domain evaluation and OOD tests, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Baseline Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 273, + 682, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the novel cross-domain QA setting, we establish baselines using generative models – BART (Lewis et al., 2020), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) – and discriminative models – BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019b), and SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020) with the help of Huggingface framework (Wolf et al., 2020). We also implement the commonly used domain adaptation method in previous works (Yue et al., 2022; Cao et al., 2020) to compare with our method. The AdamW optimizer has a default learning rate of $10^{-5}$ . Other hyper-parameters are tuned by optimizing the performance on the validation set. The standard fine-tuning strategy is considered a baseline when compared to our methods by using four strategies:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 294, + 884, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Baseline: we select the RoBERTa-base model as the baseline of discriminative methods.", + "2. Baseline + P: we adopt the same baseline models and fine-tuning strategy, only replacing the original dataset with the prompted dataset.", + "3. Baseline + LP-FT: we first tune the last linear layer (the \"Head\" for question answering) parameters and replace the head parameters initialized by Huggingface framework models with the head parameters after linear probing. The original dataset is used in this section.", + "4. Baseline $+\\mathrm{P} + \\mathrm{LP}$ -FT: the LP-FT strategy is adopted on the dataset with the prompt." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 564, + 884, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 833, + 705, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following previous work (Gu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), The Macro F1-score (F1) and exact match (EM) are used to evaluate the model's performance. If the predicted answer matches the true", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1302", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a575b6ab365004cb7f489a25ccf35a1f05344faba7e8e8259417d5d22a8451f0.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
BARTRoBERTa
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnologyTrain/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri70.29(+0.36)24.53(+0.47)68.44(+1.7)24.07(+2.78)68.61(+3.39)23.61(+4.63)ConOri78.20(+0.19)51.38(+1.86)72.49(+2.58)47.68(+0.93)74.63(+2.83)49.07(+0.47)
OursOurs
IndOri70.11(+3.95)31.31(+4.75)72.53(+4.05)32.41(+7.48)69.63(+3.84)27.27(+9.93)IndOri77.81(+2.74)49.45(+9.57)80.05(+0.65)58.46(+2.20)77.91(+1.09)48.35(+9.02)
OursOurs
TechOri69.89(+2.78)30.30(+3.03)69.53(+2.98)27.77(+3.45)71.79(+2.23)33.83(+0.51)TechOri75.54(+2.39)55.05(+0.00)73.99(+2.71)48.98(+7.08)76.49(+0.27)54.04(-0.50)
OursOurs
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 185 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3c31607025321f98947ff44b7146956da463795d0a4428db0959ac51844c4333.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Out-of-domain test results of the BART-base model (Left) and RoBERTa-base (Right) on CausalQA (Setup 1). The numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method. \"Ori\" denotes the original fine-tuning method, and \"Ours\" denotes the Prompt-based LP-FT method." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
BART74.1636.5073.2634.49
BART + LP-FT74.0635.0373.8334/00
BART + P75.6037.4775.3337.66
BART + P + LP-FT77.6041.2276.9039.44
RoBERTa83.9761.8283.4561.28
RoBERTa + LP-FT84.8062.1583.4961.18
RoBERTa + P84.5562.2083.6161.34
RoBERTa + P + LP-FT84.5662.1583.8761.42
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 258, + 497, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Results of Domain-Independent QA on CausalQA dataset. 'F1' refers to Macro F1, EM refers to exact match. The model name refers to base models, \"+\" denotes the base model+prompt method, \"+LP-FT\" denotes the base model+LP-FT method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 391, + 489, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "answer for each question-answer pair, $\\mathrm{EM} = 1$ . Otherwise, $\\mathrm{EM} = 0$ . The Macro F1 score is defined as the mean of token-level F1 scores:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 487, + 489, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nM a c r o F 1 - s c o r e = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {N} F 1 - s c o r e _ {i} \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 542, + 487, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $i$ is the token index and $N$ is the length of the golden answer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 594, + 487, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Results and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 637, + 346, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method is applied to both domain-independent QA tasks (§5.1) and cross-domain QA tasks (§5.2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 662, + 487, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 In-domain Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 705, + 349, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For domain-independent QA, the in-domain performance represents the model performance using the traditional hold-out test, where both the training set and test set come from the whole dataset without splitting domains. The domain-independent results are shown in Table 2, where the Prompt LP-FT method brings performance gain over both the BART model (in average $+3.64\\%$ in F1, $+4.95\\%$ in EM) and the RoBERTa model (in average $+0.42\\%$ in F1, $+0.14\\%$ in EM). Taking the BART model as an example, $BART + LP - FT$ achieves slightly better performance $(+0.57\\%)$ compared with BART,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which shows the LP-FT method brings limited benefits to the model on the domain-independent QA task. However, $BART + P$ ( $+2.07\\%$ ) over $BART$ outperforms $BART + LP - FT$ ( $+0.57\\%$ ) over $BART$ , which shows that the prompt-based method can benefit the model without splitting domains.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 261, + 884, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 1, the numbers on the diagonal represent the ID performance on each domain, and the values in parentheses below represent the in-domain performance increase brought by our method (in average $+2.21\\%$ in F1 and $+2.82\\%$ in EM) (left). Though the performance gain on each domain varies, our method consistently improves the performance of in-domain evaluations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 360, + 885, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Out-of-domain performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 507, + 779, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results on CausalQA. The experiment results of cross-domain CausalQA are shown in $3 \\times 3$ tables Table 1 where each row represents contrast experiments with the same testing data, and each column represents the model performance on different test sets. The numbers not on the diagonal represent the performance tested on a domain different from the training domain, called OOD test results. Overall, the proposed method benefits the OOD performance by an average of $+3.11\\%$ in F1 and $4.76\\%$ in EM on BART and by an average of $+2.39\\%$ in F1 and $4.51\\%$ in EM on RoBERTa. For example, by comparison in the same scenario, we find that the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test on BART $(+3.95\\%)$ is more significant than the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test based on RoBERTa $(+2.74\\%)$ . Our method brings larger performance gains for generative models (BART) than discriminative models (RoBERTa). These results show that the performance benefits based on discriminative models are less than generative models by using Prompt LP-FT. Intuitively, this can be because the added prompt can be used directly to generate answers as we fine-tune BART", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1303", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2e4244a62a98811ff90c950fe2356384f6db9bf4a285d8425ac79004b408bb95.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
S->NS->CN->SN->CC->SC->N
RoBERTa37.6066.5849.8744.2219.447.45
RoBERTa+DA (Yue et al., 2022)38.2666.1450.3143.0522.747.15
RoBERTa+P38.17*66.8450.97*48.37*21.41*8.64*
RoBERTa+LPFT37.95*66.6050.28*45.86*20.92*7.5
RoBERTa+P+LPFT38.76*66.86*52.41*51.64*23.02*7.73*
BART33.7146.9743.4931.7826.148.69
BART+DA (Yue et al., 2022)35.0955.6544.0533.4726.989.02
BART+P36.81*56.22*43.61*31.9125.969.26*
BART+LPFT33.2953.29*44.05*31.9526.87*9.49*
BART+P+LPFT35.23*55.86*44.36*33.79*27.61*9.54*
", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 80, + 801, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: OOD test results on SQuAD (S), CausalQA (C), and NewsQA (N) (Setup 2). [S->N] represents that the model is trained on SQuAD while tested on NewsQA. “+P” represents the prompting methods. “+DA” represents the Domain Adaptation method (Yue et al., 2022). The proposed method shows statistically significant improvements compared to the baseline model indicated by * using Student T-test (p<0.01, 10-time run).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 244, + 884, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in a Seq2Seq manner.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 328, + 278, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 1, we compare the performance of BART on Consumer-Train/Consumer-Test to Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test. Our method improves the performance by $+0.36\\%$ on the consumer test set and $+3.95\\%$ when testing on the samples from the industrial domain, indicating that the proposed method is better for cross-domain generalization. Moreover, the benefit on Consumer-Train/Technology-Test $(+2.78\\%)$ is relatively small compared to the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test $(+3.95\\%)$ . It hints that the same prompt has variant effects on different domains. This can be because different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 348, + 487, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OOD Tests Between Different Datasets. We show the OOD generalization results between different popular datasets in Table 3. It can be seen that the Prompt LP-FT method improves the OOD test performance of RoBERTa on average by $2.54\\%$ on three data sets and $2.60\\%$ for BART. It is worth noting that our method brings a performance improvement of up to $7.42\\%$ (NewsQA-CausalQA) on RoBERTa, while the maximum performance improvement reaches $8.89\\%$ (SQuAD-CausalQA) on BART. The result is consistent with the finding in Setup 1 that Prompt LP-FT can benefit generative models more than discriminative ones.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 577, + 487, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is noteworthy that even though our method assumes that no target domain annotations are available (zero-shot), the baseline method using Domain Adaptation (DA) assumes that a small number of target annotations are available (few-shot), our method can consistently achieve better performance than the DA method in all six settings. These results based on the OOD generalization", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "among three datasets suggest that Prompt LP-FT is a highly robust, easy-to-transfer, and convincing method to improve the cross-domain generalization ability of QA models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 328, + 882, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 638, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide discussion to understand better the relative contributions of Prompt LP-FT toward performance improvement, including the universality of our method, the ablation study, and case study.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 882, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Universality. The results in Sec 5.1, 5.2 show that our proposed method improves the OOD generalization performance of various models to varying degrees, with ID performance increasing as well. Experimental results on multiple models demonstrate that our method holds good portability and can benefit variant models, including generative (BART) and discriminative (RoBERTa) models. Results on more backbone models (e.g., T5 and SpanBERT) can be found in appendix A.5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 498, + 882, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows an ablation study of Prompt-based LP-FT. We find that the combination of prompting methods with LP-FT achieves the best performance in four of six settings, illustrating the advantage of prompt-based LP-FT. In addition, BART+Prompt shows an absolute advantage compared to BART+LP-FT, which can be because prompts benefit the cross-domain QA task by introducing more background knowledge than the adjustment of the tuning strategy. The detailed ablation results are shown in Appendix A.5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 882, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Case Study Table 4 presents a case study of four test samples. For each instance, we show the input context, the prompt sentence, and the output predicted by the baseline method and our method (Prompt LP-FT). It can be seen that the gold an", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1304", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/10664241b463cd300e2f6285456dae05d7c0e6f7775dbb0411f4df9d11522959.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Context & PromptQuestionGold AnswerBaseline OutputOur Output
Predictive Model: SpanBERT-base
As Terex has expanded its MP product line, it has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer demand. This may provide revenue synergies in the future......\nPrompt: To answer a "Why useful" question, you need to look for "allowing"Why Terex has expanded its MP product line is useful?gain greater insight into customerit has captured a larger global market share ofit has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer
However, Avnet's management conceded...... Suppliers get access to a broad range of customers by using Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering teams. In exchange for these services, Avnet can generate ...... Prompt: The sentiment of this question is positive, you need to look for "significant"What will be prevented if suppliers get access to a broad range of customers?investment in sales and engineeringusing Avnetusing Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering
Generative Model: BART-base
At the end of 2020, the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period, to about 1,920 locations (around 2,100 including Petsense), driving sales and EPS compound annual growth rates over the past three years of 14% and 27%, respectively. We forecast that the firm will grow to around ...... Prompt: The entity "EPS" is mentioned in the question. This timing "annual" is mentioned in the question.Why sales and EPS compound annual growth rates increase?the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period14% and 27%the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five years
Finally, we view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand, which finds itself on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry over the medium to long term. Though Chipotle saw economic value destruction in 201 ...... Prompt: "restaurant industry" is an important phrase. And also pay attention to these words:"edge", "changes"What will happen if on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry?the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brandover the medium to long termwe view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Case study of \"Why\" and \"What-if\" questions answering tasks based on the SpanBERT-base and BART-base models. The Gold Answer is highlighted using the green text, while the Incorrect Answer predicted by the baseline method is highlighted by the red text.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 423, + 882, + 466 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/41ecdbec9c96dc387fd6db7e1feaea22c8a4d97cee48aa5d6c7ccf8932d66ecb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Ablation results based on the BART-base model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 489, + 478, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "svers are mostly included in the output of Prompt LP-FT, while the output of baseline models is prone to errors. Specifically, baseline models, including SpanBERT-base and BART-base, tend to output the answers closer to the question in the context instead of observing the whole sentence. For example, for the question \"What will be prevented if suppliers ... customers?\", the SpanBERT-base model will output the wrong answer – \"using Avnet\" that is close to the question in the context – while the correct answer – \"investment in sales and engineering\" is ignored. These comparisons provide evidence that our method is beneficial in address", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing the spurious features of sentence order for QA models. This can be because the well-designed prompt combined with LP-FT helps QA models understand the context better.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 491, + 882, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 579, + 640, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce a zero-shot cross-domain QA task and present a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method by combining prompt with a linear-probing finetuning strategy, providing theoretical proof that the proposed method can enhance the model's indomain performance and out-of-domain generalizability, and empirically showing that the Prompt LP-FT method consistently benefits the QA models. Experimental results show that (1) current methods still have a lag much behind human-level towards the cross-domain QA generalization; (2) our method brings larger performance gains for generative models than discriminative models; (3) the use of the prompt-based LP-FT in other NLP tasks is worth trying. Meanwhile, the emergent ability of LLMs will definitely decrease the challenge of the current cross-domain QA setting. Designing challenging datasets of cross-domain QA towards LLMs should be paid more attention in the future.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 613, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1305", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 211, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method has a few limitations which may inspire future work. First, the prompt templates are manually designed, although we've introduced the rules and intuitions used in our implementation. Second, the proposed method may have low scalability to long text. Because we add the prompt at the end of the context, the prompt would be truncated if the context itself exceeds the maximum acceptable token length of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 268, + 265, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper honors the ACL Code of Ethics. Public available datasets are used to establish our results. No private data and crowd-sourcing work are used to produce predictions. The code and data are open-sourced under the CC-BY-NC-SA license.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 294, + 490, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 388, + 278, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant number 18/CRT/6183, the financial support of the Pioneer and \"Leading Goose\" R&D Program of Zhejiang under Grant Number 2022SDXHDX0003 and the 72nd round of the Chinese Post-doctoral Science Foundation project 2022M722836. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Yue Zhang is the corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 489, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 634, + 213, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Akari Asai, Xinyan Yu, Jungo Kasai, and Hanna Hajishirzi. 2021. One question answering model for many languages with cross-lingual dense passage retrieval. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:7547-7560.", + "Gerlof Bouma. 2009. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of GSCL, 30:31-40.", + "Yu Cao, Meng Fang, Baosheng Yu, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. 2020. Unsupervised domain adaptation on reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7480-7487.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 658, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Drop: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00161.", + "Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond iid: three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 3477-3488.", + "Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112.", + "Alon Jacovi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Shauli Ravfogel, Yanai Elazar, Yejin Choi, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Contrastive explanations for model interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1597-1611.", + "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77.", + "Divyansh Kaushik, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary Lipton. 2020. Learning the difference that makes a difference with counterfactually-augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Divyansh Kaushik, Amrith Setlur, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary C Lipton. 2021. Explaining the efficacy of counterfactually augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Tomas Kocisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gabor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328.", + "Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Matthew Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. 2022. Finetuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1306", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Patrick Lewis, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Question and answer test-train overlap in open-domain question answering datasets. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1000-1008.", + "Linqing Liu, Patrick Lewis, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2021a. Challenges in generalization in open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01156.", + "Nelson F Liu, Matt Gardner, Yonatan Belinkov, Matthew E Peters, and Noah A Smith. 2019a. Linguistic knowledge and transferability of contextual representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1073-1094.", + "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Jinghui Lu, Linyi Yang, Brian Mac Namee, and Yue Zhang. 2022. A rationale-centric framework for human-in-the-loop machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12918.", + "Ruotian Ma, Xin Zhou, Tao Gui, Yiding Tan, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. Template-free prompt tuning for few-shot ner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13532.", + "Andrey Malinin, Neil Band, Yarin Gal, Mark Gales, Alexander Ganshin, German Chesnokov, Alexey Noskov, Andrey Ploskonosov, Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Ivan Provilkov, Vatsal Raina, Vyas Raina, Denis Roginskiy, Mariya Shmatova, Panagiotis Tigas, and Boris Yangel. 2021. Shifts: A dataset of real distributional shift across multiple large-scale tasks. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2).", + "Itzik Malkiel and Lior Wolf. 2021. Maximal multiverse learning for promoting cross-task generalization of fine-tuned language models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 187-199.", + "Stephen L Morgan and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jong-Hoon Oh, Kentaro Torisawa, Chikara Hashimoto, Ryu Iida, Masahiro Tanaka, and Julien Kloetzer. 2016. A Semi-Supervised Learning Approach to Why-Question Answering. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1).", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21:1-67.", + "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392.", + "Priyanka Sen and Amir Saffari. 2020. What do models learn from question answering datasets? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2429-2438, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Nilesh Tripuraneni, Michael Jordan, and Chi Jin. 2020. On the theory of transfer learning: The importance of task diversity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7852-7862.", + "Adam Trischler, Tong Wang, Xingdi Yuan, Justin Harris, Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, and Kaheer Suleman. 2017. NewsQA: A machine comprehension dataset. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 191-200, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Neeraj Varshney, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Investigating selective prediction approaches across several tasks in iid, ood, and adversarial settings. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1995–2002.", + "Cunxiang Wang, Pai Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Can generative pre-trained language models serve as knowledge bases for closed-book qa? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3241-3251.", + "Yufei Wang, Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Huang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, and Daxin Jiang. 2022. Promda: Prompt-based data augmentation for low-resource nlu tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4242-4255.", + "Zhao Wang and Aron Culotta. 2021. Robustness to spurious correlations in text classification via automatically generated counterfactuals. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 14024-14031." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1307", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dirk Weissenborn, Georg Wiese, and Laura Seiffe. 2017. Making neural QA as simple as possible but not simpler. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 271-280, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 38-45.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 174, + 489, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sen Wu, Hongyang R Zhang, and Christopher Ré. 2020. Understanding and improving information transfer in multi-task learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 277, + 489, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Linyi Yang, Jiazheng Li, Pádraig Cunningham, Yue Zhang, Barry Smyth, and Ruihai Dong. 2021. Exploring the efficacy of automatically generated counterfactuals for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 306-316.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 340, + 489, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Linyi Yang, Zhen Wang, Yuxiang Wu, Jie Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Towards fine-grained causal reasoning and qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07408.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 456, + 487, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xiang Yue, Ziyu Yao, and Huan Sun. 2022. Synthetic question value estimation for domain adaptation of question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1340-1351.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 506, + 489, + 585 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 599, + 238, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Template Comparison", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 625, + 339, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As we see in Table 5, changing \"But\" in the template to \"And\" alters the logical relationship between the preceding and following sentences, which had an impact of more than $1\\%$ on the performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Template Engineering", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 737, + 339, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The main objective of applying prompt templates is to enhance the model's out-of-domain performance by extracting invariant features between different domain questions. Therefore, the first rule is that a designed template should avoid containing domain-related information. For example, \"This [health] company [Hologic] is mentioned in the question.\" should not be an ideal template because it involves extra domain information that Hologic is a health company.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6224c7afe454ee5faa74ac45e0858e1cfca9ec2afea3b6c13d4ca1ee7592bfe3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The word overlap between different datasets considered by the CasualQA task." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 84, + 873, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d8f7bb484206752286d47c8a42d189ac919e49a4879ddb6c77f57ceb6da9e0b1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: The word overlap between SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 267, + 873, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, a template should be a proper English sentence with correct spelling, no grammar mistakes, and proper semantic meaning. Our experiment shows that one wrong word in a template may cause significant performance variation (see Appendix A.1).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 462, + 882, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Third, since templates are concatenated at the end of the context, templates cannot be too long. If a template has almost the same length as the context or even longer, it will double the amount of input data and thus increase the computational cost of the model; more importantly, it may deprive the leader role of the context, which may make the model too generalized to capture the answers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 561, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fourth, there are two main varieties of prompt templates: cloze prompt and prefix prompt. (Liu et al., 2021b) Cloze prompt fill in the blanks of a textual string, and the prefix prompt continue a string prefix. Instead of using only one type, we include both variants of templates in the designed four prompt templates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 692, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to these rules, we design four types of templates, of which each type has different sentence patterns. Template generalization is modulized as a two-step process: 1) generating the prompt words, and 2) filling in the blanks (Liu et al., 2021b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1308", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a29f2f7b772712dec8c422502de40c07393a39e8657cfc38bdb91056e1c0d3af.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TemplateF1
BaselineNone70.29
Experiment1"There is no important phrase in this query.\nBut also pay attention to these words: _”69.57
Experiment2"There is no important phrase in this query.\nAnd also pay attention to these words: _”70.84
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 480, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Template Designing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 313, + 319, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sentiment Templates Assume that a person unfamiliar with the restaurant industry tries to answer the question, \"Why the global restaurant sector has come under pressure?\" This person can easily find that this question concerns the factors that adversely affect restaurants even without industry knowledge. Therefore, looking for negative words from the context, like destroyed, restricted etc., may help to locate the correct answer. Based on the intuition above, we implement a sentiment analysis framework * to give each question and each word in the answer sentence a sentiment score. Afterwards, the highest positive or negative scores are selected to be used as the prompt words. Second, the sentient of the question and the prompt words are filled in the blanks of sentiment templates.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 338, + 489, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Named Entity Templates Unique entities mentioned in a question could hint at answering the question. Hence, a named entity recognition framework is applied to each question. We intend to recognize five types of entities mentioned in the question: Person, Organization, Location, Country, and Date. Entities not included in the five types are assigned as \"Other\" entities. Step two fills the recognized entities in the blanks as prompt words.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Phrase Template Phrases are usually the question subject, potentially valuable in locating the correct answer. A simple strategy is designed to find out the phrases composed of an adjective(s) and noun(s). For example, \"hybrid environments\", \"software-as-a-service applications\", and \"remote access\" are phrases in a question. These phrases are selected as prompt words and filled in the blanks in step two.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 744, + 489, + 888 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f36387610865cb887f162bfd4aeb7995a11c260c4946fb753357dad60d713ec4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: The effect of using an improper word in a template." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
SpanBERT-base84.7762.6284.8564.04
SpanBERT-large85.4061.4185.5362.26
", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 80, + 870, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3daf6999de7f785eb49e5281b04b9fef2f678ff7a2020888d98491997acaae54.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Domain-independent QA results of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DomainConIndTech
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Con85.8460.6484.8056.0185.5455.09
Ind85.7666.6685.8467.2185.3465.57
Tech80.2458.0881.5158.5881.9858.08
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 185, + 880, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Out-of-domain test results of SpanBERT-base.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 265, + 880, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Word Overlap between Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 307, + 811, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fig 5 and 6 show the word overlap percentage between different domains of the CausalQA dataset, and also on datasets from different domains, i.e., between the SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 330, + 882, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Experiment Results on Other Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 424, + 852, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On both domain-independent QA and cross-domain QA tasks, the SpanBERT model achieves state-of-the-art performance. Table 6 shows the domain-independent QA result of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model, which also provides evidence that the proposed method works on the large model which can achieve better results than it on the base model. Tab7 shows the result of the Span-BERT OOD test.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 445, + 882, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tab 8 shows the cross-domain QA experiment results on T5-base. We show that our method can significantly improve the cross-domain QA performance compared to the standard fine-tuning results based on the CausalQA dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 592, + 882, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tab 9, 10 and Fig 7 are the ablation study results on RoBERTa and BART models for cross-domain QA task on the CausalQA dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 673, + 880, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 Details of experimental results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 798, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The experiment is conducted on a GTX 3090 TI with 24GB graphics RAM size. The average training time for each model on the domain-independent QA task is around 2.5 hours, and on the cross-domain QA task is around 30 minutes on CausalQA dataset. On SQuAD and NewsQA dataset, the average training time for each model is around 3 hours. For each experiment setting, we run 10 repeated experiments and report the average results. The model name indicates the base model is no size", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 757, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*implemented using the NLTK module", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 374, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1309", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f912288d8413187b77d793b43972af742c0bfc32ed2ffadf97f558b7a2a97833.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri59.3015.7456.6918.6056.1317.67
Ours(+2.19)(+3.87)(+1.79)(+0.84)(+2.24)(+1.77)
IndOri59.8524.7261.4124.0359.9425.27
Ours(+2.52)(-0.68)(+0.06)(-3.81)(+1.64)(-4.51)
TechOri55.3017.8554.4116.8358.7620.20
Ours(+3.70)(+5.38)(+4.83)(+5.39)(+0.53)(+2.02)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Out-of-domain test results of the T5-base model. Numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 178, + 487, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b5a937991c85a82586fa99a17d64963fd96132d98841d8ca688d04f8a726f491.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model for cross-domain QA." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 235, + 485, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "specification, e.g. \"BART+P\" indicates the BART-base model plus the prompting method. We also implemented large models to prove the effectiveness of the proposed models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 454, + 489, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the hyperparameter tuning, we split the whole dataset into train/Validation/test sets on the domain-independent QA task and use the validation set for hyperparameter tuning. On the cross-domain QA task, we split the dataset of each domain into train/Validation/test sets and use the validation set that comes from the same domain with the training set for hyperparameter tuning. The criterion used to select the hyperparameter is the F1 on the validation set. We first select a series of candidate values of a hyperparameter through uniform sampling from a reasonable range, then select the value that achieves the best F1 on the validation set. Three repeated trials decide the value of a hyperparameter. For example, we give the best-performing RoBERTa-base model configuration on ConsumerTrain/Technology-Test experiment as follows: the learning rate for linear-probing is $10^{-6}$ , the number of epochs for linear probing is 3, the learning rate for fine-tuning is $10^{-5}$ , the training batch size is 4, parameters are updated every 8 batches, and the number of epochs for fine-tuning is 14.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 519, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1310", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/842fb982a963eea71b6ca6f76796cce96a9735440290b46e6b26f07b33fbdb1a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: RoBERTaCon78.2051.3872.4947.6874.6349.07
Ind77.8149.4580.0558.4677.9148.35
Tec75.5455.0573.9948.9876.4954.04
RoBERTa + LP-FTCon75.0947.6873.8246.7575.7250.00
Ind78.8148.9081.01*51.1076.7150.00
Tec79.2356.06*77.5055.0578.2253.53
RoBERTa + PromptCon78.97*53.2477.09*50.00*77.93*51.85*
Ind78.4556.2880.0561.74*80.05*57.92*
Tec77.4654.5478.50*57.58*80.62*58.08*
RoBERTa + LP-FT + PromptCon78.3953.24*75.0748.6177.4649.54
Ind80.55*59.02*80.7060.6679.0057.37
Tec77.93*55.0576.7056.0676.7653.54
", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 174, + 813, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3179e4dfb972525a9f1abbe92377abf66b509bd2ac89f7d760e83d01a0201c56.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model. Also, the results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test ( $P < 0.01$ )." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: BARTCon70.2924.5368.4424.0768.6123.61
Ind70.1131.3172.5332.4169.5327.77
Tec69.8930.3069.5327.7771.7933.83
BART + LP-FTCon70.81*24.0770.22*24.5368.2623.61
Ind70.6130.7773.3931.8770.9128.57
Tec71.0835.3572.3130.3072.3733.33
BART + PromptCon70.4127.31*69.1023.1569.2023.61
Ind74.42*42.07*76.2737.1673.0034.43
Tec72.2032.3272.5130.373.3235.35*
BART + LP-FT + PromptCon70.6525.0170.1426.85*72.00*28.24*
Ind74.0636.0676.58*39.89*73.37*37.70*
Tec72.67*33.3372.96*31.31*74.02*34.34
", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 595, + 801, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: Ablation study results based on the BART-base model for cross-domain QA. The results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test ( $P < 0.01$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 777, + 884, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1311", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The limitation-related discussion can be found in the section \"Limitation\".", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 697, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 349, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"Abstract\" and \"Introduction\" sections.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 678, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We have not used AI writing assistants when working on this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 648, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 299, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We used the Huggingface framework in implementing our model. Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 321, + 880, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 362, + 529, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 380, + 616, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 405, + 778, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"Ethics Statement\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 423, + 589, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 448, + 880, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The usage of the Huggingface framework in this paper was consistent with their intended use. Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 514, + 880, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 556, + 880, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All datasets used in this paper are dominant question-answering datasets created and used by many previous works. Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 605, + 880, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 646, + 880, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 681, + 557, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 705, + 880, + 787 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 788, + 557, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 807, + 877, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1312", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 494, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"A.6 Details of experimental results\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 105, + 702, + 121 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 130, + 878, + 161 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" and \"A.6 Details of experimental results\" sections.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 164, + 878, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 205, + 878, + 236 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 239, + 613, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc, or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 265, + 878, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"5 Results and Discussion\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 313, + 648, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 340, + 878, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related text can be found in the \"A.3 Template Designing\" section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 388, + 640, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 416, + 877, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 437, + 213, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 463, + 878, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 495, + 248, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 521, + 878, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 571, + 248, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 596, + 878, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 646, + 248, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 671, + 872, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 689, + 248, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 715, + 878, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 747, + 248, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1313", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_model.json b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0ccc31160b980ef1c4480321244c5be9a9fb9eb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3059 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.263, + 0.08, + 0.735, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.235, + 0.105, + 0.768, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yingjie Niu* 1,2, Linyi Yang* 3,4, Ruihai Dong1,2, Yue Zhang 3,4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.136, + 0.739, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 School of Computer Science, University College Dublin" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.273, + 0.154, + 0.733, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 SFI Centre for Research Training in Machine Learning" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.136, + 0.739, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.2, + 0.17, + 0.808, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\) Institute of Advanced Technology, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.319, + 0.186, + 0.689, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{4}\\) School of Engineering, Westlake University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.262, + 0.204, + 0.747, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yingjie.niu}@ucdconnect.ie,{ruihai.dong}@ucd.ie" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.318, + 0.222, + 0.692, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yanglinyi, zhangyue}@westlake.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There have been growing concerns regarding the out-of-domain generalization ability of natural language processing (NLP) models, particularly in question-answering (QA) tasks. Current synthesized data augmentation methods for QA are hampered by increased training costs. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach that combines prompting methods and linear probing then fine-tuning strategy, which does not entail additional cost. Our method has been theoretically and empirically shown to be effective in enhancing the generalization ability of both generative and discriminative models. Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, with an average increase in F1 score of \\(4.5\\% - 7.9\\%\\). Furthermore, our method can be easily integrated into any pre-trained models and offers a promising solution to the under-explored cross-domain QA task. We release our source code at Github*." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.581, + 0.26, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.608, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question answering (QA) models (Oh et al., 2016; Trischler et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2021; Gu et al., 2021) aim to answer passage-based questions automatically with the help of facts in a given context (sometimes referred to as machine reading comprehension (Dua et al., 2019; Sen and Saffari, 2020)). Over the last few years, pre-trained models have achieved great progress on a variety of large-scale datasets, e.g., SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017), DROP (Dua et al., 2019), CoRA (Asai et al., 2021), and NarrativeQA (Kocisky et al., 2018). However, existing methods can suffer significant performance degradation when the tuned system is directly applied to out-of-domain examples (Gururangan et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020; Tripuraneni et al., 2020; Kaushik et al., 2020; Malinin et al., 2021; Varshney et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.25, + 0.875, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.389, + 0.883, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Cross-domain QA task consists of three datasets from different domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.45, + 0.885, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper focuses on a novel cross-domain QA task where we assume models trained on the source domain can be generalized to the target domain, where no labeled or unlabeled data is available. As shown in Figure 1, QA pairs from different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions. For example, in the technology field, the context can frequently contain \"e-commerce\" and \"network\". While in the pharmaceutical sector, the context can consist of \"COVID-19\", \"vaccine\", and \"diagnostic\" more frequently. Cross-domain QA poses significant challenges to real-world scenarios, and it is proved that even large-scale pre-trained models (Gu et al., 2021) can still encounter performance degradation under domain generalization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these drawbacks, we introduce a novel cross-domain QA setting, focusing on the methods that consistently improve the domain generalization performance without additional computational costs. Intuitively, cross-domain QA can benefit from prompting in which instances from different domains can share a unified set of label words. Thus, no additional parameters can carry domain-specific information to hinder the OOD generalization for an unseen domain. However, using the prompt method solely could increase the risk of overfitting and bring limited benefits, as prompt templates are fixed, which may be learned as spurious features by models. Thus, we consider" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.431, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*These authors contributed equally to this work." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.442, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\*https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.442, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1298" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.768, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1298-1313" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "using the linear-probing and then fine-tuning (LP-FT) strategy to reduce the reliance between prompt patterns with labels by freezing pre-trained parameters. In this way, LP-FT can benefit cross-domain QA by preventing pre-trained features from being distorted when tuning on a specific domain (Kumar et al., 2022). Prompt-based LP-FT method does not introduce new parameters, so the performance decay when training on a source domain and testing on a new target domain can be reduced without entailing additional cost." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.264, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Under the LP-FT framework, we introduce four prompt types to extract invariant features in different domains: question type, sentiment, named entity, and key phrase. These prompts aim to increase the question similarity and benefit the model in generalizing to out-of-domain questions. Existing prompting methods have not been applied to natural language processing tasks beyond simple fine-tuning settings. To enable promoting methods to adapt LP-FT, we theoretically prove that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for prompting methods (Section 3.3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.458, + 0.492, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We experiment on three different domain datasets (Figure 1). Results show that our prompt-based LP-FT method significantly improves the performance of cross-domain QA models on either the standard hold-out or OOD tests, with an average increase in F1 of \\(4.5\\% -7.9\\%\\) compared to baselines. Also, our method consistently outperforms the standard fine-tuning strategy on both discriminative and generative models. Besides, we provide an in-depth analysis of the ablation study towards the OOD robustness that details the efficacy of LP-FT and prompting methods, respectively. To our knowledge, we are the first to present a new zero-shot cross-domain QA task and propose a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method. All resources are available at https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.73, + 0.27, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Out-of-domain performance degradation has attracted considerable research interest recently. A line of work (Morgan and Winship, 2015; Wang and Culotta, 2021; Kaushik et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Malkiel and Wolf, 2021; Lu et al., 2022) aims to improve models' generalization ability on text classification. Differently, we investigate the OOD generalization problem on the QA task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lewis et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2021) find that \\(60 - 70\\%\\) of test-time answers of popular open-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "domain QA benchmark datasets exist in the training set, and it is proved that training set memory plays a vital role in testing. Liu et al. (2021a) empirically prove that language models suffer performance degradation when there is no train-test set overlapping. To test the actual generalization ability of QA models, several novel QA datasets have been constructed and released, focusing on evaluating QA models on out-of-domain generalization ability (Gu et al., 2021). Yang et al. (2022) present the first cross-domain QA dataset and observe a performance decay problem regarding the OOD test. Many existing methods intend to improve the OOD performance of QA models through data augmentation. Yue et al. (2022) introduce a synthesizing question-answer pairs method to improve target-domain QA performance. In contrast, we propose a prompt-based method combined with linear probing and then fine-tuning, which is more computationally efficient and does not require target domain annotations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.43, + 0.887, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt-based methods on pre-trained language models have received considerable research interest. The paradigm \"pre-train, prompt, and predict\" replaces the \"pre-train, fine-tune\" procedure for improved few-shot learning (Liu et al., 2021b). Prompt-based methods have been applied not only in sentence-level few-shot learning tasks, such as named entity recognition (Ma et al., 2021) but also in sophisticated learning tasks like natural language understanding (Wang et al., 2022). However, little work applies prompts on the cross-domain QA tasks (Jacovi et al., 2021). We leverage the fixed-format characteristic of the prompt to extract the invariant features in the changing dataset to enhance the OOD generalization of the model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.679, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instead of fine-tuning, linear probing is an alternative to tuning a pre-trained model on a downstream task. Liu et al. (2019a); Tripuraneni et al. (2020) examine the representations produced by several recent pre-trained language models and find that linear models trained on top of frozen contextual representations are competitive with state-of-the-art task-specific fine-tuned models in many cases but fail in tasks where fine-grained language knowledge is required. Kumar et al. (2022) theoretically prove that the linear-probing then fine-tuning (LP-FT) approach can enhance the OOD generalization ability of pre-trained models. In our work, we are the first to provide theoretical evidence that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1299" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.083, + 0.855, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.383, + 0.884, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The workflow of the prompt-based linear-probing then fine-tuning strategy. The bottom part shows the template engineering process where we add a prompt for each sample. The middle part represents the feature space of the Prompt LP-FT model and baseline models. Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains. The top part demonstrates the linear probing and then fine-tuning process. The \"Q\", \"C\" and \"P\" represent \"Question\", \"Context\" and \"Prompt\" in a sample, respectively (in bottom)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.52, + 0.325, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "prompting methods in NLP." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.55, + 0.219, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.578, + 0.49, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2 illustrates the workflow of the Prompt-based LP-FT method. We first generate a prompt for each input sample through template engineering and prompt designing (§3.1). Then, the source domain dataset with prompts is used for linear probing and then fine-tuning (§3.2) a pre-trained model. (top). Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains (middle). The feature space demonstrates how the prompt-based method and the LP-FT strategy benefit the cross-domain QA, respectively, and also shows the motivation for using prompt-based LP-FT to benefit the cross-domain QA task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.865, + 0.318, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Template Designing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We take a Template Engineering process to look for a prompt template that results in the most ef" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.52, + 0.885, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "fective performance on a given task. The template designing rules can be found in appendix A.2. The prompt design is inspired by the process of a nonnative speaker (or a non-professional reader) reading articles (or professional documents) and answering questions. They may lack some depth of knowledge, such as the meanings of less commonly used words (or domain-specific knowledge). Language models may encounter similar situations in the cross-domain QA task. We design four types of templates. Figure 3 gives an example of a question-type template. Other template designs can be found in appendix A.3. Below, we take the question-type template as an example to illustrate the template designing process:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question-type Templates. Suppose that for a given question, \"Why have we increased our projections for cancer drug Loxo305 and diabetes drug tripeptide is useful?\", a human tester tries to find the answer from the article. In the question, users might not understand tokens such as Loxo305, diabetes, tripeptide, etc. However, if the user is aware that the question might be about \"Why something is useful?\", then she/he can search" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1300" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.09, + 0.462, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.242, + 0.454, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Generating question-type prompts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.28, + 0.489, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "some keywords such as because, as, and since from the article and the context following these words, which might help her/him to find the correct answer. For each type of question, some specific words might help to locate their answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.36, + 0.489, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We consider four typical types of questions. For each question type, we first find out the most related words with it, such as because, since with the question type why, by measuring Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) scores (Bouma, 2009) between candidate words and the question type. Afterward, we select the 50 most related words to generate a prompt for each question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.489, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Loss Functions. For a prompt-based QA task, given a question-context-prompt tuple \\((Q,C,P)\\), we calculate the probability of each word \\(c_{n}\\) being the start position or end position of the correct answer for discriminative models as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.577, + 0.488, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np \\left(c _ {n} \\mid Q, C, P\\right) = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(W _ {\\text {h e a d}} h _ {c _ {n}} + b _ {\\text {h e a d}}\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.6, + 0.49, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(Q \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_q \\times d_{word}}\\), \\(C \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_c \\times d_{word}}\\), and \\(P \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_p \\times d_{word}}\\) denote the question, context and prompt, respectively. \\(s_q / s_c / s_p\\) and \\(d_{word}\\) denote the question/context/prompt sentence length and the word embedding dimension, respectively. \\(h_{c_n}\\) denotes the feature representation of \\((Q, C, P)\\) concatenated on the first dimension produced by a pretrained model, \\(W_{head} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{\\nu \\times d_h}\\) and \\(b_{head} \\in \\mathbb{R}^\\nu\\). \\(d_h\\) denotes the dimension of \\(h_{c_n}\\) and \\(\\nu\\) denotes the length of answer sentence. The loss function is the sum of the cross entropy for start and end positions." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.79, + 0.487, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {d i s} = - \\sum_ {n = 1} ^ {m} \\log p \\left(c _ {n} | Q, C, P\\right) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.834, + 0.403, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(m\\) is the number of words in \\(C\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.85, + 0.487, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We regard the QA task as a Seq2Seq generation task for generative models and use the LM loss," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.891, + 0.487, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {g e n}} = - \\sum_ {n} \\log p \\left(c _ {n} \\mid c _ {< n}, Q, C, P\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.81, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(c_{< n}\\) denotes the generated words." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.112, + 0.815, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Linear Probing then Fine-tuning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.133, + 0.884, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The OOD generalization problem is defined as follows (Kumar et al., 2022): given a predictor \\( f \\): to map inputs \\( X \\) to outputs \\( Y \\). For some loss function \\( \\mathcal{L} \\), the predictor in-domain performance \\( L_{id} \\) and out-of-domain performance \\( L_{ood} \\) are:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.584, + 0.224, + 0.88, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {i d} (f) = \\underset {(X, \\mathbf {y}) \\sim p _ {i d}} {\\mathbb {E}} [ \\mathcal {L} (f (X)), \\mathbf {y} ] \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.57, + 0.255, + 0.825, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {o o d} (f) = \\underset {(X, \\mathbf {y}) \\sim p _ {o o d}} {\\mathbb {E}} [ \\mathcal {L} (f (X)), \\mathbf {y} ]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.288, + 0.884, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where the predictor is evaluated on test samples \\((X, \\mathbf{y})\\) drawn from in-domain distribution \\(P_{id}\\), and also evaluated on test samples \\((X, \\mathbf{y})\\) drawn from out-of-domain distribution \\(P_{ood}\\). To simplify the formula representation, in this paper, \\(X\\) represents the question, and context (\\(Q\\) and \\(C\\)); \\(\\mathbf{y}\\) indicates the answer sentence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.401, + 0.885, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The final predictor \\( f \\) is parameterized as a feature extractor and a linear \"head\". Hence, the training loss is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.596, + 0.46, + 0.882, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\mathcal {L}} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = \\left| \\left| X B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v} - \\mathbf {y} \\right| \\right| _ {2} ^ {2} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.492, + 0.884, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{v}\\) denotes the linear head and \\(B\\) denotes the feature extractor. We assume that the initial feature extractor \\(B_{0}\\) is obtained from the pre-trained model, considering two methods to learn a predictor \\(f_{\\mathbf{v},B}\\): 1) linear probing where \\(B = B_{0}\\) and the linear head is obtained by minimizing some loss on the training data (Liu et al., 2019a), and 2) fine-tuning where both \\(\\mathbf{v}\\) and \\(B\\) are updated on the training data with \\(B\\) initialized as \\(B_{0}\\) (Kumar et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.647, + 0.696, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Theoretical Proof" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.668, + 0.884, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We prove that linear probing and then fine-tuning improves the results for prompt tuning by extending the proof for standard fine-tuning (Kumar et al., 2022). In particular, the derivative of Eq 5 with respect to the feature extractor \\(B\\) is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.759, + 0.881, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\nabla_ {B} \\hat {\\mathcal {L}} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \\mathbf {v} \\left(\\mathbf {y} - X B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v}\\right) ^ {\\top} X \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For Eq 6, if \\(U\\) is a sample extracted from a direction orthogonal subspace to the training subspace, \\(\\nabla_B\\hat{\\mathcal{L}} (\\mathbf{v},B)U = 0\\), the training process on \\(X\\) will not decrease the loss on the orthogonal subspace. However, the gradient is not zero for directions in the ID subspace. This explains why fine-tuning can achieve a higher ID performance but a lower OOD performance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1301" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our proposed prompt-based method, the prompt \\( P \\) is concatenated to the original \\( X \\) (along the sentence length dimension), and the equation can be expressed below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.162, + 0.488, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\nabla_ {B} \\hat {\\mathcal {L}} _ {p} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \\mathbf {v} (Y - (X + P) B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v}) ^ {\\top} (X + P) \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.198, + 0.487, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where assume that \\(P\\) is not orthogonal to the \\(X\\) or its orthogonal subspace. Consequently, we have \\(\\nabla_B\\hat{\\mathcal{L}}_p(\\mathbf{v},B)(U + P)\\neq 0\\). In this way, the training process on \\(X\\) with prompt \\(P\\) would modify the loss on the OOD samples with the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.279, + 0.487, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the linear probing and then fine-tuning method, the OOD error of fine-tuning is" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.324, + 0.486, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\sqrt {L _ {o o d} \\left(\\mathbf {v} _ {f t} , B _ {f t} (t)\\right)} \\geq \\sigma \\frac {\\operatorname* {m i n} \\left(\\varphi , \\varphi^ {2} / \\left| \\left| w _ {*} \\right| \\right| _ {2}\\right)}{\\left(1 + \\left| \\left| w _ {*} \\right| \\right| _ {2}\\right) ^ {2}} \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.372, + 0.489, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{v}_{ft}\\) and \\(B_{ft}\\) are the linear head and feature extractor after fine-tuning. \\(\\sigma\\) is a fixed parameter (Kumar et al., 2022) related to \\(B_0\\). \\(w_{*} = \\mathbf{v}_{*}B_{*},\\mathbf{v}_{*}\\) and \\(B_{*}\\) are the optimal parameters. \\(\\varphi\\) is the initial head alignment error \\(\\varphi = |(\\mathbf{v}_0^\\top \\mathbf{v}_*)^2 -(\\mathbf{v}_*^\\top \\mathbf{v}_*)^2|\\). In order to decrease the OOD error, the head \\(\\mathbf{v}_0\\) has to be as close to the \\(\\mathbf{v}_{*}\\) as possible. It is proved that initializing the head with \\(\\mathbf{v}_{lp}\\) (LP-FT) can decrease the OOD error (Kumar et al., 2022) more than random initializing head with \\(\\mathbf{v}_0\\) (FT) since \\(\\mathbf{v}_0\\) is far away from \\(\\mathbf{v}_{*}\\). Converting input \\(X\\) to \\(X + P\\) does not affect \\(\\frac{\\min(\\varphi,\\varphi^2/||w_*||_2)}{(1+||w_*||_2)^2}\\), implying the LP-FT strategy can be applied after we introduce \\(P\\). As a result, the Prompt-based LP-FT strategy is used to avoid distorting pre-trained features." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.631, + 0.322, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.658, + 0.49, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce experiments' datasets, baseline methods, and evaluation metrics in this section." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.704, + 0.228, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the proposed method on three datasets: Causal QA (Yang et al., 2022), SQuAD 1.1 (Weissenborn et al., 2017) and NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017). All datasets are in English. Domain-related information is provided in the CausalQA dataset, which is valuable for cross-domain question-answering tasks. For the in-domain test, we experiment on the whole CausalQA dataset before splitting into domainsdomain-independent QA) and on each particular domain after splitting into domains. The distribution change and word overlap between datasets can be found in appendix A.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the OOD test, we have two experiment setups: Setup 1) we split the CausalQA dataset, based on the domain information, into mutually exclusive training/validation/testing sets in the same ratio of 8:1:1. Setup 2) we conduct OOD tests across different datasets from different domains. In cross-domain QA, both the training and validation sets of the source domain are used in the training process for hyperparameter searching. The testing sets of source and target domains are used for in-domain evaluation and OOD tests, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.274, + 0.684, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Baseline Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.295, + 0.885, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the novel cross-domain QA setting, we establish baselines using generative models – BART (Lewis et al., 2020), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) – and discriminative models – BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019b), and SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020) with the help of Huggingface framework (Wolf et al., 2020). We also implement the commonly used domain adaptation method in previous works (Yue et al., 2022; Cao et al., 2020) to compare with our method. The AdamW optimizer has a default learning rate of \\(10^{-5}\\). Other hyper-parameters are tuned by optimizing the performance on the validation set. The standard fine-tuning strategy is considered a baseline when compared to our methods by using four strategies:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.565, + 0.882, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Baseline: we select the RoBERTa-base model as the baseline of discriminative methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.61, + 0.884, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Baseline + P: we adopt the same baseline models and fine-tuning strategy, only replacing the original dataset with the prompted dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.669, + 0.885, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Baseline + LP-FT: we first tune the last linear layer (the \"Head\" for question answering) parameters and replace the head parameters initialized by Huggingface framework models with the head parameters after linear probing. The original dataset is used in this section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.777, + 0.882, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Baseline \\(+\\mathrm{P} + \\mathrm{LP}\\) -FT: the LP-FT strategy is adopted on the dataset with the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.565, + 0.885, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.834, + 0.707, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following previous work (Gu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), The Macro F1-score (F1) and exact match (EM) are used to evaluate the model's performance. If the predicted answer matches the true" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1302" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
BARTRoBERTa
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnologyTrain/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri70.29(+0.36)24.53(+0.47)68.44(+1.7)24.07(+2.78)68.61(+3.39)23.61(+4.63)ConOri78.20(+0.19)51.38(+1.86)72.49(+2.58)47.68(+0.93)74.63(+2.83)49.07(+0.47)
OursOurs
IndOri70.11(+3.95)31.31(+4.75)72.53(+4.05)32.41(+7.48)69.63(+3.84)27.27(+9.93)IndOri77.81(+2.74)49.45(+9.57)80.05(+0.65)58.46(+2.20)77.91(+1.09)48.35(+9.02)
OursOurs
TechOri69.89(+2.78)30.30(+3.03)69.53(+2.98)27.77(+3.45)71.79(+2.23)33.83(+0.51)TechOri75.54(+2.39)55.05(+0.00)73.99(+2.71)48.98(+7.08)76.49(+0.27)54.04(-0.50)
OursOurs
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.194, + 0.884, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Out-of-domain test results of the BART-base model (Left) and RoBERTa-base (Right) on CausalQA (Setup 1). The numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method. \"Ori\" denotes the original fine-tuning method, and \"Ours\" denotes the Prompt-based LP-FT method." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.259, + 0.499, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
BART74.1636.5073.2634.49
BART + LP-FT74.0635.0373.8334/00
BART + P75.6037.4775.3337.66
BART + P + LP-FT77.6041.2276.9039.44
RoBERTa83.9761.8283.4561.28
RoBERTa + LP-FT84.8062.1583.4961.18
RoBERTa + P84.5562.2083.6161.34
RoBERTa + P + LP-FT84.5662.1583.8761.42
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.392, + 0.49, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Results of Domain-Independent QA on CausalQA dataset. 'F1' refers to Macro F1, EM refers to exact match. The model name refers to base models, \"+\" denotes the base model+prompt method, \"+LP-FT\" denotes the base model+LP-FT method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.488, + 0.49, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "answer for each question-answer pair, \\(\\mathrm{EM} = 1\\). Otherwise, \\(\\mathrm{EM} = 0\\). The Macro F1 score is defined as the mean of token-level F1 scores:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.543, + 0.488, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nM a c r o F 1 - s c o r e = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {N} F 1 - s c o r e _ {i} \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.595, + 0.489, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(i\\) is the token index and \\(N\\) is the length of the golden answer." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.638, + 0.347, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Results and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.663, + 0.489, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method is applied to both domain-independent QA tasks (§5.1) and cross-domain QA tasks (§5.2)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.706, + 0.35, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 In-domain Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For domain-independent QA, the in-domain performance represents the model performance using the traditional hold-out test, where both the training set and test set come from the whole dataset without splitting domains. The domain-independent results are shown in Table 2, where the Prompt LP-FT method brings performance gain over both the BART model (in average \\(+3.64\\%\\) in F1, \\(+4.95\\%\\) in EM) and the RoBERTa model (in average \\(+0.42\\%\\) in F1, \\(+0.14\\%\\) in EM). Taking the BART model as an example, \\(BART + LP - FT\\) achieves slightly better performance \\((+0.57\\%)\\) compared with BART," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.262, + 0.885, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which shows the LP-FT method brings limited benefits to the model on the domain-independent QA task. However, \\( BART + P \\) (\\( +2.07\\% \\)) over \\( BART \\) outperforms \\( BART + LP - FT \\) (\\( +0.57\\% \\)) over \\( BART \\), which shows that the prompt-based method can benefit the model without splitting domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.361, + 0.886, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 1, the numbers on the diagonal represent the ID performance on each domain, and the values in parentheses below represent the in-domain performance increase brought by our method (in average \\(+2.21\\%\\) in F1 and \\(+2.82\\%\\) in EM) (left). Though the performance gain on each domain varies, our method consistently improves the performance of in-domain evaluations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.508, + 0.78, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Out-of-domain performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results on CausalQA. The experiment results of cross-domain CausalQA are shown in \\(3 \\times 3\\) tables Table 1 where each row represents contrast experiments with the same testing data, and each column represents the model performance on different test sets. The numbers not on the diagonal represent the performance tested on a domain different from the training domain, called OOD test results. Overall, the proposed method benefits the OOD performance by an average of \\(+3.11\\%\\) in F1 and \\(4.76\\%\\) in EM on BART and by an average of \\(+2.39\\%\\) in F1 and \\(4.51\\%\\) in EM on RoBERTa. For example, by comparison in the same scenario, we find that the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test on BART \\((+3.95\\%)\\) is more significant than the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test based on RoBERTa \\((+2.74\\%)\\). Our method brings larger performance gains for generative models (BART) than discriminative models (RoBERTa). These results show that the performance benefits based on discriminative models are less than generative models by using Prompt LP-FT. Intuitively, this can be because the added prompt can be used directly to generate answers as we fine-tune BART" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1303" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.082, + 0.803, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
S->NS->CN->SN->CC->SC->N
RoBERTa37.6066.5849.8744.2219.447.45
RoBERTa+DA (Yue et al., 2022)38.2666.1450.3143.0522.747.15
RoBERTa+P38.17*66.8450.97*48.37*21.41*8.64*
RoBERTa+LPFT37.95*66.6050.28*45.86*20.92*7.5
RoBERTa+P+LPFT38.76*66.86*52.41*51.64*23.02*7.73*
BART33.7146.9743.4931.7826.148.69
BART+DA (Yue et al., 2022)35.0955.6544.0533.4726.989.02
BART+P36.81*56.22*43.61*31.9125.969.26*
BART+LPFT33.2953.29*44.05*31.9526.87*9.49*
BART+P+LPFT35.23*55.86*44.36*33.79*27.61*9.54*
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.245, + 0.885, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: OOD test results on SQuAD (S), CausalQA (C), and NewsQA (N) (Setup 2). [S->N] represents that the model is trained on SQuAD while tested on NewsQA. “+P” represents the prompting methods. “+DA” represents the Domain Adaptation method (Yue et al., 2022). The proposed method shows statistically significant improvements compared to the baseline model indicated by * using Student T-test (p<0.01, 10-time run)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.329, + 0.279, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in a Seq2Seq manner." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.349, + 0.489, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 1, we compare the performance of BART on Consumer-Train/Consumer-Test to Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test. Our method improves the performance by \\(+0.36\\%\\) on the consumer test set and \\(+3.95\\%\\) when testing on the samples from the industrial domain, indicating that the proposed method is better for cross-domain generalization. Moreover, the benefit on Consumer-Train/Technology-Test \\((+2.78\\%)\\) is relatively small compared to the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test \\((+3.95\\%)\\). It hints that the same prompt has variant effects on different domains. This can be because different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.578, + 0.489, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OOD Tests Between Different Datasets. We show the OOD generalization results between different popular datasets in Table 3. It can be seen that the Prompt LP-FT method improves the OOD test performance of RoBERTa on average by \\(2.54\\%\\) on three data sets and \\(2.60\\%\\) for BART. It is worth noting that our method brings a performance improvement of up to \\(7.42\\%\\) (NewsQA-CausalQA) on RoBERTa, while the maximum performance improvement reaches \\(8.89\\%\\) (SQuAD-CausalQA) on BART. The result is consistent with the finding in Setup 1 that Prompt LP-FT can benefit generative models more than discriminative ones." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is noteworthy that even though our method assumes that no target domain annotations are available (zero-shot), the baseline method using Domain Adaptation (DA) assumes that a small number of target annotations are available (few-shot), our method can consistently achieve better performance than the DA method in all six settings. These results based on the OOD generalization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.329, + 0.883, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "among three datasets suggest that Prompt LP-FT is a highly robust, easy-to-transfer, and convincing method to improve the cross-domain generalization ability of QA models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.409, + 0.64, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.433, + 0.884, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide discussion to understand better the relative contributions of Prompt LP-FT toward performance improvement, including the universality of our method, the ablation study, and case study." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.499, + 0.884, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Universality. The results in Sec 5.1, 5.2 show that our proposed method improves the OOD generalization performance of various models to varying degrees, with ID performance increasing as well. Experimental results on multiple models demonstrate that our method holds good portability and can benefit variant models, including generative (BART) and discriminative (RoBERTa) models. Results on more backbone models (e.g., T5 and SpanBERT) can be found in appendix A.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.661, + 0.884, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows an ablation study of Prompt-based LP-FT. We find that the combination of prompting methods with LP-FT achieves the best performance in four of six settings, illustrating the advantage of prompt-based LP-FT. In addition, BART+Prompt shows an absolute advantage compared to BART+LP-FT, which can be because prompts benefit the cross-domain QA task by introducing more background knowledge than the adjustment of the tuning strategy. The detailed ablation results are shown in Appendix A.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Case Study Table 4 presents a case study of four test samples. For each instance, we show the input context, the prompt sentence, and the output predicted by the baseline method and our method (Prompt LP-FT). It can be seen that the gold an" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1304" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.081, + 0.885, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Context & PromptQuestionGold AnswerBaseline OutputOur Output
Predictive Model: SpanBERT-base
As Terex has expanded its MP product line, it has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer demand. This may provide revenue synergies in the future......\nPrompt: To answer a "Why useful" question, you need to look for "allowing"Why Terex has expanded its MP product line is useful?gain greater insight into customerit has captured a larger global market share ofit has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer
However, Avnet's management conceded...... Suppliers get access to a broad range of customers by using Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering teams. In exchange for these services, Avnet can generate ...... Prompt: The sentiment of this question is positive, you need to look for "significant"What will be prevented if suppliers get access to a broad range of customers?investment in sales and engineeringusing Avnetusing Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering
Generative Model: BART-base
At the end of 2020, the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period, to about 1,920 locations (around 2,100 including Petsense), driving sales and EPS compound annual growth rates over the past three years of 14% and 27%, respectively. We forecast that the firm will grow to around ...... Prompt: The entity "EPS" is mentioned in the question. This timing "annual" is mentioned in the question.Why sales and EPS compound annual growth rates increase?the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period14% and 27%the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five years
Finally, we view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand, which finds itself on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry over the medium to long term. Though Chipotle saw economic value destruction in 201 ...... Prompt: "restaurant industry" is an important phrase. And also pay attention to these words:"edge", "changes"What will happen if on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry?the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brandover the medium to long termwe view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.424, + 0.884, + 0.467 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Case study of \"Why\" and \"What-if\" questions answering tasks based on the SpanBERT-base and BART-base models. The Gold Answer is highlighted using the green text, while the Incorrect Answer predicted by the baseline method is highlighted by the red text." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.491, + 0.479, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.65, + 0.486, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Ablation results based on the BART-base model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "svers are mostly included in the output of Prompt LP-FT, while the output of baseline models is prone to errors. Specifically, baseline models, including SpanBERT-base and BART-base, tend to output the answers closer to the question in the context instead of observing the whole sentence. For example, for the question \"What will be prevented if suppliers ... customers?\", the SpanBERT-base model will output the wrong answer – \"using Avnet\" that is close to the question in the context – while the correct answer – \"investment in sales and engineering\" is ignored. These comparisons provide evidence that our method is beneficial in address" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.492, + 0.884, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing the spurious features of sentence order for QA models. This can be because the well-designed prompt combined with LP-FT helps QA models understand the context better." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.58, + 0.642, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce a zero-shot cross-domain QA task and present a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method by combining prompt with a linear-probing finetuning strategy, providing theoretical proof that the proposed method can enhance the model's indomain performance and out-of-domain generalizability, and empirically showing that the Prompt LP-FT method consistently benefits the QA models. Experimental results show that (1) current methods still have a lag much behind human-level towards the cross-domain QA generalization; (2) our method brings larger performance gains for generative models than discriminative models; (3) the use of the prompt-based LP-FT in other NLP tasks is worth trying. Meanwhile, the emergent ability of LLMs will definitely decrease the challenge of the current cross-domain QA setting. Designing challenging datasets of cross-domain QA towards LLMs should be paid more attention in the future." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1305" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.212, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method has a few limitations which may inspire future work. First, the prompt templates are manually designed, although we've introduced the rules and intuitions used in our implementation. Second, the proposed method may have low scalability to long text. Because we add the prompt at the end of the context, the prompt would be truncated if the context itself exceeds the maximum acceptable token length of the model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.269, + 0.266, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.295, + 0.491, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper honors the ACL Code of Ethics. Public available datasets are used to establish our results. No private data and crowd-sourcing work are used to produce predictions. The code and data are open-sourced under the CC-BY-NC-SA license." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.389, + 0.279, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.415, + 0.49, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant number 18/CRT/6183, the financial support of the Pioneer and \"Leading Goose\" R&D Program of Zhejiang under Grant Number 2022SDXHDX0003 and the 72nd round of the Chinese Post-doctoral Science Foundation project 2022M722836. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Yue Zhang is the corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.636, + 0.214, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.659, + 0.489, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Akari Asai, Xinyan Yu, Jungo Kasai, and Hanna Hajishirzi. 2021. One question answering model for many languages with cross-lingual dense passage retrieval. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:7547-7560." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.737, + 0.487, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gerlof Bouma. 2009. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of GSCL, 30:31-40." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.788, + 0.488, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yu Cao, Meng Fang, Baosheng Yu, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. 2020. Unsupervised domain adaptation on reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7480-7487." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.659, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Drop: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00161." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.165, + 0.885, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond iid: three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 3477-3488." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.245, + 0.885, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.35, + 0.884, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alon Jacovi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Shauli Ravfogel, Yanai Elazar, Yejin Choi, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Contrastive explanations for model interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1597-1611." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.522, + 0.883, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Divyansh Kaushik, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary Lipton. 2020. Learning the difference that makes a difference with counterfactually-augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.588, + 0.883, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Divyansh Kaushik, Amrith Setlur, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary C Lipton. 2021. Explaining the efficacy of counterfactually augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.655, + 0.883, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomas Kocisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gabor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.734, + 0.883, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Matthew Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. 2022. Finetuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1306" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Question and answer test-train overlap in open-domain question answering datasets. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1000-1008." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.177, + 0.489, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linqing Liu, Patrick Lewis, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2021a. Challenges in generalization in open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01156." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.242, + 0.489, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nelson F Liu, Matt Gardner, Yonatan Belinkov, Matthew E Peters, and Noah A Smith. 2019a. Linguistic knowledge and transferability of contextual representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1073-1094." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.36, + 0.489, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.437, + 0.489, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.489, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinghui Lu, Linyi Yang, Brian Mac Namee, and Yue Zhang. 2022. A rationale-centric framework for human-in-the-loop machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12918." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.58, + 0.489, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruotian Ma, Xin Zhou, Tao Gui, Yiding Tan, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. Template-free prompt tuning for few-shot ner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13532." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.645, + 0.489, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrey Malinin, Neil Band, Yarin Gal, Mark Gales, Alexander Ganshin, German Chesnokov, Alexey Noskov, Andrey Ploskonosov, Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Ivan Provilkov, Vatsal Raina, Vyas Raina, Denis Roginskiy, Mariya Shmatova, Panagiotis Tigas, and Boris Yangel. 2021. Shifts: A dataset of real distributional shift across multiple large-scale tasks. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.787, + 0.489, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Itzik Malkiel and Lior Wolf. 2021. Maximal multiverse learning for promoting cross-task generalization of fine-tuned language models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 187-199." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen L Morgan and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jong-Hoon Oh, Kentaro Torisawa, Chikara Hashimoto, Ryu Iida, Masahiro Tanaka, and Julien Kloetzer. 2016. A Semi-Supervised Learning Approach to Why-Question Answering. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.885, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21:1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.253, + 0.883, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.329, + 0.883, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Priyanka Sen and Amir Saffari. 2020. What do models learn from question answering datasets? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2429-2438, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.419, + 0.883, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nilesh Tripuraneni, Michael Jordan, and Chi Jin. 2020. On the theory of transfer learning: The importance of task diversity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7852-7862." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.482, + 0.883, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Trischler, Tong Wang, Xingdi Yuan, Justin Harris, Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, and Kaheer Suleman. 2017. NewsQA: A machine comprehension dataset. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 191-200, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.584, + 0.883, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neeraj Varshney, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Investigating selective prediction approaches across several tasks in iid, ood, and adversarial settings. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1995–2002." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.661, + 0.883, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cunxiang Wang, Pai Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Can generative pre-trained language models serve as knowledge bases for closed-book qa? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3241-3251." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.764, + 0.883, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yufei Wang, Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Huang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, and Daxin Jiang. 2022. Promda: Prompt-based data augmentation for low-resource nlu tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4242-4255." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhao Wang and Aron Culotta. 2021. Robustness to spurious correlations in text classification via automatically generated counterfactuals. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 14024-14031." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1307" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dirk Weissenborn, Georg Wiese, and Laura Seiffe. 2017. Making neural QA as simple as possible but not simpler. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 271-280, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 38-45." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.278, + 0.49, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sen Wu, Hongyang R Zhang, and Christopher Ré. 2020. Understanding and improving information transfer in multi-task learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.341, + 0.49, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linyi Yang, Jiazheng Li, Pádraig Cunningham, Yue Zhang, Barry Smyth, and Ruihai Dong. 2021. Exploring the efficacy of automatically generated counterfactuals for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 306-316." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.457, + 0.489, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linyi Yang, Zhen Wang, Yuxiang Wu, Jie Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Towards fine-grained causal reasoning and qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07408." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.507, + 0.49, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Yue, Ziyu Yao, and Huan Sun. 2022. Synthetic question value estimation for domain adaptation of question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1340-1351." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.6, + 0.239, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.626, + 0.34, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Template Comparison" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As we see in Table 5, changing \"But\" in the template to \"And\" alters the logical relationship between the preceding and following sentences, which had an impact of more than \\(1\\%\\) on the performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.738, + 0.34, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Template Engineering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The main objective of applying prompt templates is to enhance the model's out-of-domain performance by extracting invariant features between different domain questions. Therefore, the first rule is that a designed template should avoid containing domain-related information. For example, \"This [health] company [Hologic] is mentioned in the question.\" should not be an ideal template because it involves extra domain information that Hologic is a health company." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.085, + 0.875, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.22, + 0.883, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The word overlap between different datasets considered by the CasualQA task." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.268, + 0.875, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.405, + 0.883, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: The word overlap between SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.463, + 0.884, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, a template should be a proper English sentence with correct spelling, no grammar mistakes, and proper semantic meaning. Our experiment shows that one wrong word in a template may cause significant performance variation (see Appendix A.1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.562, + 0.884, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Third, since templates are concatenated at the end of the context, templates cannot be too long. If a template has almost the same length as the context or even longer, it will double the amount of input data and thus increase the computational cost of the model; more importantly, it may deprive the leader role of the context, which may make the model too generalized to capture the answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.693, + 0.883, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fourth, there are two main varieties of prompt templates: cloze prompt and prefix prompt. (Liu et al., 2021b) Cloze prompt fill in the blanks of a textual string, and the prefix prompt continue a string prefix. Instead of using only one type, we include both variants of templates in the designed four prompt templates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to these rules, we design four types of templates, of which each type has different sentence patterns. Template generalization is modulized as a two-step process: 1) generating the prompt words, and 2) filling in the blanks (Liu et al., 2021b)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1308" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.481, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TemplateF1
BaselineNone70.29
Experiment1"There is no important phrase in this query.\nBut also pay attention to these words: _”69.57
Experiment2"There is no important phrase in this query.\nAnd also pay attention to these words: _”70.84
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.255, + 0.488, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: The effect of using an improper word in a template." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.314, + 0.321, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Template Designing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.339, + 0.49, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sentiment Templates Assume that a person unfamiliar with the restaurant industry tries to answer the question, \"Why the global restaurant sector has come under pressure?\" This person can easily find that this question concerns the factors that adversely affect restaurants even without industry knowledge. Therefore, looking for negative words from the context, like destroyed, restricted etc., may help to locate the correct answer. Based on the intuition above, we implement a sentiment analysis framework * to give each question and each word in the answer sentence a sentiment score. Afterwards, the highest positive or negative scores are selected to be used as the prompt words. Second, the sentient of the question and the prompt words are filled in the blanks of sentiment templates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Named Entity Templates Unique entities mentioned in a question could hint at answering the question. Hence, a named entity recognition framework is applied to each question. We intend to recognize five types of entities mentioned in the question: Person, Organization, Location, Country, and Date. Entities not included in the five types are assigned as \"Other\" entities. Step two fills the recognized entities in the blanks as prompt words." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.745, + 0.49, + 0.889 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Phrase Template Phrases are usually the question subject, potentially valuable in locating the correct answer. A simple strategy is designed to find out the phrases composed of an adjective(s) and noun(s). For example, \"hybrid environments\", \"software-as-a-service applications\", and \"remote access\" are phrases in a question. These phrases are selected as prompt words and filled in the blanks in step two." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.082, + 0.871, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
SpanBERT-base84.7762.6284.8564.04
SpanBERT-large85.4061.4185.5362.26
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.144, + 0.884, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Domain-independent QA results of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.186, + 0.881, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DomainConIndTech
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Con85.8460.6484.8056.0185.5455.09
Ind85.7666.6685.8467.2185.3465.57
Tech80.2458.0881.5158.5881.9858.08
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.266, + 0.881, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Out-of-domain test results of SpanBERT-base." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.308, + 0.813, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Word Overlap between Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.331, + 0.884, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fig 5 and 6 show the word overlap percentage between different domains of the CausalQA dataset, and also on datasets from different domains, i.e., between the SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.425, + 0.853, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Experiment Results on Other Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.447, + 0.883, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On both domain-independent QA and cross-domain QA tasks, the SpanBERT model achieves state-of-the-art performance. Table 6 shows the domain-independent QA result of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model, which also provides evidence that the proposed method works on the large model which can achieve better results than it on the base model. Tab7 shows the result of the Span-BERT OOD test." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.593, + 0.884, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tab 8 shows the cross-domain QA experiment results on T5-base. We show that our method can significantly improve the cross-domain QA performance compared to the standard fine-tuning results based on the CausalQA dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.674, + 0.882, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tab 9, 10 and Fig 7 are the ablation study results on RoBERTa and BART models for cross-domain QA task on the CausalQA dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.736, + 0.799, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 Details of experimental results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.758, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The experiment is conducted on a GTX 3090 TI with 24GB graphics RAM size. The average training time for each model on the domain-independent QA task is around 2.5 hours, and on the cross-domain QA task is around 30 minutes on CausalQA dataset. On SQuAD and NewsQA dataset, the average training time for each model is around 3 hours. For each experiment setting, we run 10 repeated experiments and report the average results. The model name indicates the base model is no size" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.376, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*implemented using the NLTK module" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1309" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri59.3015.7456.6918.6056.1317.67
Ours(+2.19)(+3.87)(+1.79)(+0.84)(+2.24)(+1.77)
IndOri59.8524.7261.4124.0359.9425.27
Ours(+2.52)(-0.68)(+0.06)(-3.81)(+1.64)(-4.51)
TechOri55.3017.8554.4116.8358.7620.20
Ours(+3.70)(+5.38)(+4.83)(+5.39)(+0.53)(+2.02)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.179, + 0.489, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Out-of-domain test results of the T5-base model. Numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.236, + 0.486, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.4, + 0.49, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model for cross-domain QA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.455, + 0.49, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "specification, e.g. \"BART+P\" indicates the BART-base model plus the prompting method. We also implemented large models to prove the effectiveness of the proposed models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.52, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the hyperparameter tuning, we split the whole dataset into train/Validation/test sets on the domain-independent QA task and use the validation set for hyperparameter tuning. On the cross-domain QA task, we split the dataset of each domain into train/Validation/test sets and use the validation set that comes from the same domain with the training set for hyperparameter tuning. The criterion used to select the hyperparameter is the F1 on the validation set. We first select a series of candidate values of a hyperparameter through uniform sampling from a reasonable range, then select the value that achieves the best F1 on the validation set. Three repeated trials decide the value of a hyperparameter. For example, we give the best-performing RoBERTa-base model configuration on ConsumerTrain/Technology-Test experiment as follows: the learning rate for linear-probing is \\( 10^{-6} \\), the number of epochs for linear probing is 3, the learning rate for fine-tuning is \\( 10^{-5} \\), the training batch size is 4, parameters are updated every 8 batches, and the number of epochs for fine-tuning is 14." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1310" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.175, + 0.814, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: RoBERTaCon78.2051.3872.4947.6874.6349.07
Ind77.8149.4580.0558.4677.9148.35
Tec75.5455.0573.9948.9876.4954.04
RoBERTa + LP-FTCon75.0947.6873.8246.7575.7250.00
Ind78.8148.9081.01*51.1076.7150.00
Tec79.2356.06*77.5055.0578.2253.53
RoBERTa + PromptCon78.97*53.2477.09*50.00*77.93*51.85*
Ind78.4556.2880.0561.74*80.05*57.92*
Tec77.4654.5478.50*57.58*80.62*58.08*
RoBERTa + LP-FT + PromptCon78.3953.24*75.0748.6177.4649.54
Ind80.55*59.02*80.7060.6679.0057.37
Tec77.93*55.0576.7056.0676.7653.54
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.358, + 0.883, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model. Also, the results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test (\\(P < 0.01\\))." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.196, + 0.596, + 0.803, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: BARTCon70.2924.5368.4424.0768.6123.61
Ind70.1131.3172.5332.4169.5327.77
Tec69.8930.3069.5327.7771.7933.83
BART + LP-FTCon70.81*24.0770.22*24.5368.2623.61
Ind70.6130.7773.3931.8770.9128.57
Tec71.0835.3572.3130.3072.3733.33
BART + PromptCon70.4127.31*69.1023.1569.2023.61
Ind74.42*42.07*76.2737.1673.0034.43
Tec72.2032.3272.5130.373.3235.35*
BART + LP-FT + PromptCon70.6525.0170.1426.85*72.00*28.24*
Ind74.0636.0676.58*39.89*73.37*37.70*
Tec72.67*33.3372.96*31.31*74.02*34.34
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.778, + 0.885, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Ablation study results based on the BART-base model for cross-domain QA. The results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test (\\(P < 0.01\\))." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1311" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.534, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.145, + 0.698, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The limitation-related discussion can be found in the section \"Limitation\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.171, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.188, + 0.351, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.697, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.231, + 0.679, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"Abstract\" and \"Introduction\" sections." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.257, + 0.67, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.274, + 0.649, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We have not used AI writing assistants when working on this paper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.3, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.322, + 0.882, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We used the Huggingface framework in implementing our model. Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.363, + 0.531, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.381, + 0.617, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.406, + 0.779, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.424, + 0.59, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"Ethics Statement\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.449, + 0.882, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.515, + 0.882, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The usage of the Huggingface framework in this paper was consistent with their intended use. Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.557, + 0.882, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.606, + 0.882, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All datasets used in this paper are dominant question-answering datasets created and used by many previous works. Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.647, + 0.882, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.682, + 0.559, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.706, + 0.882, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.789, + 0.559, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.808, + 0.878, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1312" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.495, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.106, + 0.704, + 0.122 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"A.6 Details of experimental results\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.131, + 0.88, + 0.162 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.165, + 0.88, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" and \"A.6 Details of experimental results\" sections." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.206, + 0.88, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.24, + 0.615, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.266, + 0.88, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc, or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.315, + 0.65, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"5 Results and Discussion\" section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.39, + 0.642, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"A.3 Template Designing\" section." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.417, + 0.878, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.438, + 0.215, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.464, + 0.88, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.497, + 0.249, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.523, + 0.88, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.572, + 0.249, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.598, + 0.88, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.647, + 0.249, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.673, + 0.873, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.69, + 0.249, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.716, + 0.88, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.749, + 0.249, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1313" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f8f03415518efc8b5cf316d8f23ae7b042e6207 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/06da328c-3693-43bd-a99d-e97084fdd1de_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cc453542475e501b1425295a047d8b0f1b85ad9c4ee3951dba23d44ed72e9ed8 +size 1808964 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/full.md b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c96adc8f007cffcf2a41fe862cb5e90c01c06e67 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,471 @@ +# Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA + +# Yingjie Niu* 1,2, Linyi Yang* 3,4, Ruihai Dong1,2, Yue Zhang 3,4 + +1 School of Computer Science, University College Dublin +2 SFI Centre for Research Training in Machine Learning + +$^{3}$ Institute of Advanced Technology, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study + +$^{4}$ School of Engineering, Westlake University + +{yingjie.niu}@ucdconnect.ie,{ruihai.dong}@ucd.ie + +{yanglinyi, zhangyue}@westlake.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +There have been growing concerns regarding the out-of-domain generalization ability of natural language processing (NLP) models, particularly in question-answering (QA) tasks. Current synthesized data augmentation methods for QA are hampered by increased training costs. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach that combines prompting methods and linear probing then fine-tuning strategy, which does not entail additional cost. Our method has been theoretically and empirically shown to be effective in enhancing the generalization ability of both generative and discriminative models. Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, with an average increase in F1 score of $4.5\% - 7.9\%$ . Furthermore, our method can be easily integrated into any pre-trained models and offers a promising solution to the under-explored cross-domain QA task. We release our source code at Github*. + +# 1 Introduction + +Question answering (QA) models (Oh et al., 2016; Trischler et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2021; Gu et al., 2021) aim to answer passage-based questions automatically with the help of facts in a given context (sometimes referred to as machine reading comprehension (Dua et al., 2019; Sen and Saffari, 2020)). Over the last few years, pre-trained models have achieved great progress on a variety of large-scale datasets, e.g., SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017), DROP (Dua et al., 2019), CoRA (Asai et al., 2021), and NarrativeQA (Kocisky et al., 2018). However, existing methods can suffer significant performance degradation when the tuned system is directly applied to out-of-domain examples (Gururangan et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020; Tripuraneni et al., 2020; Kaushik et al., 2020; Malinin et al., 2021; Varshney et al., 2022). + +![](images/7f0d2b9ce3468322c579bb135456a1a6ff371208c1001a88745c5fdba38d0b11.jpg) +Figure 1: Cross-domain QA task consists of three datasets from different domains. + +This paper focuses on a novel cross-domain QA task where we assume models trained on the source domain can be generalized to the target domain, where no labeled or unlabeled data is available. As shown in Figure 1, QA pairs from different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions. For example, in the technology field, the context can frequently contain "e-commerce" and "network". While in the pharmaceutical sector, the context can consist of "COVID-19", "vaccine", and "diagnostic" more frequently. Cross-domain QA poses significant challenges to real-world scenarios, and it is proved that even large-scale pre-trained models (Gu et al., 2021) can still encounter performance degradation under domain generalization. + +To address these drawbacks, we introduce a novel cross-domain QA setting, focusing on the methods that consistently improve the domain generalization performance without additional computational costs. Intuitively, cross-domain QA can benefit from prompting in which instances from different domains can share a unified set of label words. Thus, no additional parameters can carry domain-specific information to hinder the OOD generalization for an unseen domain. However, using the prompt method solely could increase the risk of overfitting and bring limited benefits, as prompt templates are fixed, which may be learned as spurious features by models. Thus, we consider + +using the linear-probing and then fine-tuning (LP-FT) strategy to reduce the reliance between prompt patterns with labels by freezing pre-trained parameters. In this way, LP-FT can benefit cross-domain QA by preventing pre-trained features from being distorted when tuning on a specific domain (Kumar et al., 2022). Prompt-based LP-FT method does not introduce new parameters, so the performance decay when training on a source domain and testing on a new target domain can be reduced without entailing additional cost. + +Under the LP-FT framework, we introduce four prompt types to extract invariant features in different domains: question type, sentiment, named entity, and key phrase. These prompts aim to increase the question similarity and benefit the model in generalizing to out-of-domain questions. Existing prompting methods have not been applied to natural language processing tasks beyond simple fine-tuning settings. To enable promoting methods to adapt LP-FT, we theoretically prove that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for prompting methods (Section 3.3). + +We experiment on three different domain datasets (Figure 1). Results show that our prompt-based LP-FT method significantly improves the performance of cross-domain QA models on either the standard hold-out or OOD tests, with an average increase in F1 of $4.5\% -7.9\%$ compared to baselines. Also, our method consistently outperforms the standard fine-tuning strategy on both discriminative and generative models. Besides, we provide an in-depth analysis of the ablation study towards the OOD robustness that details the efficacy of LP-FT and prompting methods, respectively. To our knowledge, we are the first to present a new zero-shot cross-domain QA task and propose a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method. All resources are available at https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA. + +# 2 Related Work + +Out-of-domain performance degradation has attracted considerable research interest recently. A line of work (Morgan and Winship, 2015; Wang and Culotta, 2021; Kaushik et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Malkiel and Wolf, 2021; Lu et al., 2022) aims to improve models' generalization ability on text classification. Differently, we investigate the OOD generalization problem on the QA task. + +Lewis et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2021) find that $60 - 70\%$ of test-time answers of popular open- + +domain QA benchmark datasets exist in the training set, and it is proved that training set memory plays a vital role in testing. Liu et al. (2021a) empirically prove that language models suffer performance degradation when there is no train-test set overlapping. To test the actual generalization ability of QA models, several novel QA datasets have been constructed and released, focusing on evaluating QA models on out-of-domain generalization ability (Gu et al., 2021). Yang et al. (2022) present the first cross-domain QA dataset and observe a performance decay problem regarding the OOD test. Many existing methods intend to improve the OOD performance of QA models through data augmentation. Yue et al. (2022) introduce a synthesizing question-answer pairs method to improve target-domain QA performance. In contrast, we propose a prompt-based method combined with linear probing and then fine-tuning, which is more computationally efficient and does not require target domain annotations. + +Prompt-based methods on pre-trained language models have received considerable research interest. The paradigm "pre-train, prompt, and predict" replaces the "pre-train, fine-tune" procedure for improved few-shot learning (Liu et al., 2021b). Prompt-based methods have been applied not only in sentence-level few-shot learning tasks, such as named entity recognition (Ma et al., 2021) but also in sophisticated learning tasks like natural language understanding (Wang et al., 2022). However, little work applies prompts on the cross-domain QA tasks (Jacovi et al., 2021). We leverage the fixed-format characteristic of the prompt to extract the invariant features in the changing dataset to enhance the OOD generalization of the model. + +Instead of fine-tuning, linear probing is an alternative to tuning a pre-trained model on a downstream task. Liu et al. (2019a); Tripuraneni et al. (2020) examine the representations produced by several recent pre-trained language models and find that linear models trained on top of frozen contextual representations are competitive with state-of-the-art task-specific fine-tuned models in many cases but fail in tasks where fine-grained language knowledge is required. Kumar et al. (2022) theoretically prove that the linear-probing then fine-tuning (LP-FT) approach can enhance the OOD generalization ability of pre-trained models. In our work, we are the first to provide theoretical evidence that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for + +![](images/4e7641f19c292317014c7afabe91abaae50e0248ae859b0aaf28cb16044dfa13.jpg) +Figure 2: The workflow of the prompt-based linear-probing then fine-tuning strategy. The bottom part shows the template engineering process where we add a prompt for each sample. The middle part represents the feature space of the Prompt LP-FT model and baseline models. Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains. The top part demonstrates the linear probing and then fine-tuning process. The "Q", "C" and "P" represent "Question", "Context" and "Prompt" in a sample, respectively (in bottom) + +prompting methods in NLP. + +# 3 Method + +Figure 2 illustrates the workflow of the Prompt-based LP-FT method. We first generate a prompt for each input sample through template engineering and prompt designing (§3.1). Then, the source domain dataset with prompts is used for linear probing and then fine-tuning (§3.2) a pre-trained model. (top). Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains (middle). The feature space demonstrates how the prompt-based method and the LP-FT strategy benefit the cross-domain QA, respectively, and also shows the motivation for using prompt-based LP-FT to benefit the cross-domain QA task. + +# 3.1 Template Designing + +We take a Template Engineering process to look for a prompt template that results in the most ef + +fective performance on a given task. The template designing rules can be found in appendix A.2. The prompt design is inspired by the process of a nonnative speaker (or a non-professional reader) reading articles (or professional documents) and answering questions. They may lack some depth of knowledge, such as the meanings of less commonly used words (or domain-specific knowledge). Language models may encounter similar situations in the cross-domain QA task. We design four types of templates. Figure 3 gives an example of a question-type template. Other template designs can be found in appendix A.3. Below, we take the question-type template as an example to illustrate the template designing process: + +Question-type Templates. Suppose that for a given question, "Why have we increased our projections for cancer drug Loxo305 and diabetes drug tripeptide is useful?", a human tester tries to find the answer from the article. In the question, users might not understand tokens such as Loxo305, diabetes, tripeptide, etc. However, if the user is aware that the question might be about "Why something is useful?", then she/he can search + +![](images/025c03a4b4533ea8239ebbfc5ef58f9d07dffe6188147a5d5f5ac670f80347ee.jpg) +Figure 3: Generating question-type prompts + +some keywords such as because, as, and since from the article and the context following these words, which might help her/him to find the correct answer. For each type of question, some specific words might help to locate their answers. + +We consider four typical types of questions. For each question type, we first find out the most related words with it, such as because, since with the question type why, by measuring Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) scores (Bouma, 2009) between candidate words and the question type. Afterward, we select the 50 most related words to generate a prompt for each question. + +Loss Functions. For a prompt-based QA task, given a question-context-prompt tuple $(Q,C,P)$ , we calculate the probability of each word $c_{n}$ being the start position or end position of the correct answer for discriminative models as follows: + +$$ +p \left(c _ {n} \mid Q, C, P\right) = \operatorname {S o f t m a x} \left(W _ {\text {h e a d}} h _ {c _ {n}} + b _ {\text {h e a d}}\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +where $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{s_q \times d_{word}}$ , $C \in \mathbb{R}^{s_c \times d_{word}}$ , and $P \in \mathbb{R}^{s_p \times d_{word}}$ denote the question, context and prompt, respectively. $s_q / s_c / s_p$ and $d_{word}$ denote the question/context/prompt sentence length and the word embedding dimension, respectively. $h_{c_n}$ denotes the feature representation of $(Q, C, P)$ concatenated on the first dimension produced by a pretrained model, $W_{head} \in \mathbb{R}^{\nu \times d_h}$ and $b_{head} \in \mathbb{R}^\nu$ . $d_h$ denotes the dimension of $h_{c_n}$ and $\nu$ denotes the length of answer sentence. The loss function is the sum of the cross entropy for start and end positions. + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {d i s} = - \sum_ {n = 1} ^ {m} \log p \left(c _ {n} | Q, C, P\right) \tag {2} +$$ + +where $m$ is the number of words in $C$ . + +We regard the QA task as a Seq2Seq generation task for generative models and use the LM loss, + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\text {g e n}} = - \sum_ {n} \log p \left(c _ {n} \mid c _ {< n}, Q, C, P\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +where $c_{< n}$ denotes the generated words. + +# 3.2 Linear Probing then Fine-tuning + +The OOD generalization problem is defined as follows (Kumar et al., 2022): given a predictor $f$ : to map inputs $X$ to outputs $Y$ . For some loss function $\mathcal{L}$ , the predictor in-domain performance $L_{id}$ and out-of-domain performance $L_{ood}$ are: + +$$ +L _ {i d} (f) = \underset {(X, \mathbf {y}) \sim p _ {i d}} {\mathbb {E}} [ \mathcal {L} (f (X)), \mathbf {y} ] \tag {4} +$$ + +$$ +L _ {o o d} (f) = \underset {(X, \mathbf {y}) \sim p _ {o o d}} {\mathbb {E}} [ \mathcal {L} (f (X)), \mathbf {y} ] +$$ + +where the predictor is evaluated on test samples $(X, \mathbf{y})$ drawn from in-domain distribution $P_{id}$ , and also evaluated on test samples $(X, \mathbf{y})$ drawn from out-of-domain distribution $P_{ood}$ . To simplify the formula representation, in this paper, $X$ represents the question, and context ( $Q$ and $C$ ); $\mathbf{y}$ indicates the answer sentence. + +The final predictor $f$ is parameterized as a feature extractor and a linear "head". Hence, the training loss is: + +$$ +\hat {\mathcal {L}} (\mathbf {v}, B) = \left| \left| X B ^ {\top} \mathbf {v} - \mathbf {y} \right| \right| _ {2} ^ {2} \tag {5} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{v}$ denotes the linear head and $B$ denotes the feature extractor. We assume that the initial feature extractor $B_{0}$ is obtained from the pre-trained model, considering two methods to learn a predictor $f_{\mathbf{v},B}$ : 1) linear probing where $B = B_{0}$ and the linear head is obtained by minimizing some loss on the training data (Liu et al., 2019a), and 2) fine-tuning where both $\mathbf{v}$ and $B$ are updated on the training data with $B$ initialized as $B_{0}$ (Kumar et al., 2022). + +# 3.3 Theoretical Proof + +We prove that linear probing and then fine-tuning improves the results for prompt tuning by extending the proof for standard fine-tuning (Kumar et al., 2022). In particular, the derivative of Eq 5 with respect to the feature extractor $B$ is: + +$$ +\nabla_ {B} \hat {\mathcal {L}} (\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \mathbf {v} \left(\mathbf {y} - X B ^ {\top} \mathbf {v}\right) ^ {\top} X \tag {6} +$$ + +For Eq 6, if $U$ is a sample extracted from a direction orthogonal subspace to the training subspace, $\nabla_B\hat{\mathcal{L}} (\mathbf{v},B)U = 0$ , the training process on $X$ will not decrease the loss on the orthogonal subspace. However, the gradient is not zero for directions in the ID subspace. This explains why fine-tuning can achieve a higher ID performance but a lower OOD performance. + +In our proposed prompt-based method, the prompt $P$ is concatenated to the original $X$ (along the sentence length dimension), and the equation can be expressed below: + +$$ +\nabla_ {B} \hat {\mathcal {L}} _ {p} (\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \mathbf {v} (Y - (X + P) B ^ {\top} \mathbf {v}) ^ {\top} (X + P) \tag {7} +$$ + +where assume that $P$ is not orthogonal to the $X$ or its orthogonal subspace. Consequently, we have $\nabla_B\hat{\mathcal{L}}_p(\mathbf{v},B)(U + P)\neq 0$ . In this way, the training process on $X$ with prompt $P$ would modify the loss on the OOD samples with the prompt. + +In the linear probing and then fine-tuning method, the OOD error of fine-tuning is + +$$ +\sqrt {L _ {o o d} \left(\mathbf {v} _ {f t} , B _ {f t} (t)\right)} \geq \sigma \frac {\operatorname* {m i n} \left(\varphi , \varphi^ {2} / \left| \left| w _ {*} \right| \right| _ {2}\right)}{\left(1 + \left| \left| w _ {*} \right| \right| _ {2}\right) ^ {2}} \tag {8} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{v}_{ft}$ and $B_{ft}$ are the linear head and feature extractor after fine-tuning. $\sigma$ is a fixed parameter (Kumar et al., 2022) related to $B_0$ . $w_{*} = \mathbf{v}_{*}B_{*},\mathbf{v}_{*}$ and $B_{*}$ are the optimal parameters. $\varphi$ is the initial head alignment error $\varphi = |(\mathbf{v}_0^\top \mathbf{v}_*)^2 -(\mathbf{v}_*^\top \mathbf{v}_*)^2|$ . In order to decrease the OOD error, the head $\mathbf{v}_0$ has to be as close to the $\mathbf{v}_{*}$ as possible. It is proved that initializing the head with $\mathbf{v}_{lp}$ (LP-FT) can decrease the OOD error (Kumar et al., 2022) more than random initializing head with $\mathbf{v}_0$ (FT) since $\mathbf{v}_0$ is far away from $\mathbf{v}_{*}$ . Converting input $X$ to $X + P$ does not affect $\frac{\min(\varphi,\varphi^2/||w_*||_2)}{(1+||w_*||_2)^2}$ , implying the LP-FT strategy can be applied after we introduce $P$ . As a result, the Prompt-based LP-FT strategy is used to avoid distorting pre-trained features. + +# 4 Experimental Setup + +We introduce experiments' datasets, baseline methods, and evaluation metrics in this section. + +# 4.1 Datasets + +We evaluate the proposed method on three datasets: Causal QA (Yang et al., 2022), SQuAD 1.1 (Weissenborn et al., 2017) and NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017). All datasets are in English. Domain-related information is provided in the CausalQA dataset, which is valuable for cross-domain question-answering tasks. For the in-domain test, we experiment on the whole CausalQA dataset before splitting into domainsdomain-independent QA) and on each particular domain after splitting into domains. The distribution change and word overlap between datasets can be found in appendix A.4. + +For the OOD test, we have two experiment setups: Setup 1) we split the CausalQA dataset, based on the domain information, into mutually exclusive training/validation/testing sets in the same ratio of 8:1:1. Setup 2) we conduct OOD tests across different datasets from different domains. In cross-domain QA, both the training and validation sets of the source domain are used in the training process for hyperparameter searching. The testing sets of source and target domains are used for in-domain evaluation and OOD tests, respectively. + +# 4.2 Baseline Models + +Based on the novel cross-domain QA setting, we establish baselines using generative models – BART (Lewis et al., 2020), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) – and discriminative models – BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019b), and SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020) with the help of Huggingface framework (Wolf et al., 2020). We also implement the commonly used domain adaptation method in previous works (Yue et al., 2022; Cao et al., 2020) to compare with our method. The AdamW optimizer has a default learning rate of $10^{-5}$ . Other hyper-parameters are tuned by optimizing the performance on the validation set. The standard fine-tuning strategy is considered a baseline when compared to our methods by using four strategies: + +1. Baseline: we select the RoBERTa-base model as the baseline of discriminative methods. +2. Baseline + P: we adopt the same baseline models and fine-tuning strategy, only replacing the original dataset with the prompted dataset. +3. Baseline + LP-FT: we first tune the last linear layer (the "Head" for question answering) parameters and replace the head parameters initialized by Huggingface framework models with the head parameters after linear probing. The original dataset is used in this section. +4. Baseline $+\mathrm{P} + \mathrm{LP}$ -FT: the LP-FT strategy is adopted on the dataset with the prompt. + +# 4.3 Evaluation Metrics + +Following previous work (Gu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), The Macro F1-score (F1) and exact match (EM) are used to evaluate the model's performance. If the predicted answer matches the true + +
BARTRoBERTa
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnologyTrain/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri70.29(+0.36)24.53(+0.47)68.44(+1.7)24.07(+2.78)68.61(+3.39)23.61(+4.63)ConOri78.20(+0.19)51.38(+1.86)72.49(+2.58)47.68(+0.93)74.63(+2.83)49.07(+0.47)
OursOurs
IndOri70.11(+3.95)31.31(+4.75)72.53(+4.05)32.41(+7.48)69.63(+3.84)27.27(+9.93)IndOri77.81(+2.74)49.45(+9.57)80.05(+0.65)58.46(+2.20)77.91(+1.09)48.35(+9.02)
OursOurs
TechOri69.89(+2.78)30.30(+3.03)69.53(+2.98)27.77(+3.45)71.79(+2.23)33.83(+0.51)TechOri75.54(+2.39)55.05(+0.00)73.99(+2.71)48.98(+7.08)76.49(+0.27)54.04(-0.50)
OursOurs
+ +Table 1: Out-of-domain test results of the BART-base model (Left) and RoBERTa-base (Right) on CausalQA (Setup 1). The numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method. "Ori" denotes the original fine-tuning method, and "Ours" denotes the Prompt-based LP-FT method. + +
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
BART74.1636.5073.2634.49
BART + LP-FT74.0635.0373.8334/00
BART + P75.6037.4775.3337.66
BART + P + LP-FT77.6041.2276.9039.44
RoBERTa83.9761.8283.4561.28
RoBERTa + LP-FT84.8062.1583.4961.18
RoBERTa + P84.5562.2083.6161.34
RoBERTa + P + LP-FT84.5662.1583.8761.42
+ +Table 2: Results of Domain-Independent QA on CausalQA dataset. 'F1' refers to Macro F1, EM refers to exact match. The model name refers to base models, "+" denotes the base model+prompt method, "+LP-FT" denotes the base model+LP-FT method. + +answer for each question-answer pair, $\mathrm{EM} = 1$ . Otherwise, $\mathrm{EM} = 0$ . The Macro F1 score is defined as the mean of token-level F1 scores: + +$$ +M a c r o F 1 - s c o r e = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {i = 0} ^ {N} F 1 - s c o r e _ {i} \tag {9} +$$ + +where $i$ is the token index and $N$ is the length of the golden answer. + +# 5 Results and Discussion + +Our method is applied to both domain-independent QA tasks (§5.1) and cross-domain QA tasks (§5.2). + +# 5.1 In-domain Performance + +For domain-independent QA, the in-domain performance represents the model performance using the traditional hold-out test, where both the training set and test set come from the whole dataset without splitting domains. The domain-independent results are shown in Table 2, where the Prompt LP-FT method brings performance gain over both the BART model (in average $+3.64\%$ in F1, $+4.95\%$ in EM) and the RoBERTa model (in average $+0.42\%$ in F1, $+0.14\%$ in EM). Taking the BART model as an example, $BART + LP - FT$ achieves slightly better performance $(+0.57\%)$ compared with BART, + +which shows the LP-FT method brings limited benefits to the model on the domain-independent QA task. However, $BART + P$ ( $+2.07\%$ ) over $BART$ outperforms $BART + LP - FT$ ( $+0.57\%$ ) over $BART$ , which shows that the prompt-based method can benefit the model without splitting domains. + +In Table 1, the numbers on the diagonal represent the ID performance on each domain, and the values in parentheses below represent the in-domain performance increase brought by our method (in average $+2.21\%$ in F1 and $+2.82\%$ in EM) (left). Though the performance gain on each domain varies, our method consistently improves the performance of in-domain evaluations. + +# 5.2 Out-of-domain performance + +Results on CausalQA. The experiment results of cross-domain CausalQA are shown in $3 \times 3$ tables Table 1 where each row represents contrast experiments with the same testing data, and each column represents the model performance on different test sets. The numbers not on the diagonal represent the performance tested on a domain different from the training domain, called OOD test results. Overall, the proposed method benefits the OOD performance by an average of $+3.11\%$ in F1 and $4.76\%$ in EM on BART and by an average of $+2.39\%$ in F1 and $4.51\%$ in EM on RoBERTa. For example, by comparison in the same scenario, we find that the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test on BART $(+3.95\%)$ is more significant than the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test based on RoBERTa $(+2.74\%)$ . Our method brings larger performance gains for generative models (BART) than discriminative models (RoBERTa). These results show that the performance benefits based on discriminative models are less than generative models by using Prompt LP-FT. Intuitively, this can be because the added prompt can be used directly to generate answers as we fine-tune BART + +
S->NS->CN->SN->CC->SC->N
RoBERTa37.6066.5849.8744.2219.447.45
RoBERTa+DA (Yue et al., 2022)38.2666.1450.3143.0522.747.15
RoBERTa+P38.17*66.8450.97*48.37*21.41*8.64*
RoBERTa+LPFT37.95*66.6050.28*45.86*20.92*7.5
RoBERTa+P+LPFT38.76*66.86*52.41*51.64*23.02*7.73*
BART33.7146.9743.4931.7826.148.69
BART+DA (Yue et al., 2022)35.0955.6544.0533.4726.989.02
BART+P36.81*56.22*43.61*31.9125.969.26*
BART+LPFT33.2953.29*44.05*31.9526.87*9.49*
BART+P+LPFT35.23*55.86*44.36*33.79*27.61*9.54*
+ +Table 3: OOD test results on SQuAD (S), CausalQA (C), and NewsQA (N) (Setup 2). [S->N] represents that the model is trained on SQuAD while tested on NewsQA. “+P” represents the prompting methods. “+DA” represents the Domain Adaptation method (Yue et al., 2022). The proposed method shows statistically significant improvements compared to the baseline model indicated by * using Student T-test (p<0.01, 10-time run). + +in a Seq2Seq manner. + +In Table 1, we compare the performance of BART on Consumer-Train/Consumer-Test to Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test. Our method improves the performance by $+0.36\%$ on the consumer test set and $+3.95\%$ when testing on the samples from the industrial domain, indicating that the proposed method is better for cross-domain generalization. Moreover, the benefit on Consumer-Train/Technology-Test $(+2.78\%)$ is relatively small compared to the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test $(+3.95\%)$ . It hints that the same prompt has variant effects on different domains. This can be because different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions. + +OOD Tests Between Different Datasets. We show the OOD generalization results between different popular datasets in Table 3. It can be seen that the Prompt LP-FT method improves the OOD test performance of RoBERTa on average by $2.54\%$ on three data sets and $2.60\%$ for BART. It is worth noting that our method brings a performance improvement of up to $7.42\%$ (NewsQA-CausalQA) on RoBERTa, while the maximum performance improvement reaches $8.89\%$ (SQuAD-CausalQA) on BART. The result is consistent with the finding in Setup 1 that Prompt LP-FT can benefit generative models more than discriminative ones. + +It is noteworthy that even though our method assumes that no target domain annotations are available (zero-shot), the baseline method using Domain Adaptation (DA) assumes that a small number of target annotations are available (few-shot), our method can consistently achieve better performance than the DA method in all six settings. These results based on the OOD generalization + +among three datasets suggest that Prompt LP-FT is a highly robust, easy-to-transfer, and convincing method to improve the cross-domain generalization ability of QA models. + +# 5.3 Discussion + +We provide discussion to understand better the relative contributions of Prompt LP-FT toward performance improvement, including the universality of our method, the ablation study, and case study. + +Universality. The results in Sec 5.1, 5.2 show that our proposed method improves the OOD generalization performance of various models to varying degrees, with ID performance increasing as well. Experimental results on multiple models demonstrate that our method holds good portability and can benefit variant models, including generative (BART) and discriminative (RoBERTa) models. Results on more backbone models (e.g., T5 and SpanBERT) can be found in appendix A.5. + +Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows an ablation study of Prompt-based LP-FT. We find that the combination of prompting methods with LP-FT achieves the best performance in four of six settings, illustrating the advantage of prompt-based LP-FT. In addition, BART+Prompt shows an absolute advantage compared to BART+LP-FT, which can be because prompts benefit the cross-domain QA task by introducing more background knowledge than the adjustment of the tuning strategy. The detailed ablation results are shown in Appendix A.5. + +Case Study Table 4 presents a case study of four test samples. For each instance, we show the input context, the prompt sentence, and the output predicted by the baseline method and our method (Prompt LP-FT). It can be seen that the gold an + +
Context & PromptQuestionGold AnswerBaseline OutputOur Output
Predictive Model: SpanBERT-base
As Terex has expanded its MP product line, it has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer demand. This may provide revenue synergies in the future...... +Prompt: To answer a "Why useful" question, you need to look for "allowing"Why Terex has expanded its MP product line is useful?gain greater insight into customerit has captured a larger global market share ofit has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer
However, Avnet's management conceded...... Suppliers get access to a broad range of customers by using Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering teams. In exchange for these services, Avnet can generate ...... Prompt: The sentiment of this question is positive, you need to look for "significant"What will be prevented if suppliers get access to a broad range of customers?investment in sales and engineeringusing Avnetusing Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering
Generative Model: BART-base
At the end of 2020, the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period, to about 1,920 locations (around 2,100 including Petsense), driving sales and EPS compound annual growth rates over the past three years of 14% and 27%, respectively. We forecast that the firm will grow to around ...... Prompt: The entity "EPS" is mentioned in the question. This timing "annual" is mentioned in the question.Why sales and EPS compound annual growth rates increase?the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period14% and 27%the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five years
Finally, we view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand, which finds itself on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry over the medium to long term. Though Chipotle saw economic value destruction in 201 ...... Prompt: "restaurant industry" is an important phrase. And also pay attention to these words:"edge", "changes"What will happen if on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry?the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brandover the medium to long termwe view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand
+ +Table 4: Case study of "Why" and "What-if" questions answering tasks based on the SpanBERT-base and BART-base models. The Gold Answer is highlighted using the green text, while the Incorrect Answer predicted by the baseline method is highlighted by the red text. + +![](images/41ecdbec9c96dc387fd6db7e1feaea22c8a4d97cee48aa5d6c7ccf8932d66ecb.jpg) +Figure 4: Ablation results based on the BART-base model. + +svers are mostly included in the output of Prompt LP-FT, while the output of baseline models is prone to errors. Specifically, baseline models, including SpanBERT-base and BART-base, tend to output the answers closer to the question in the context instead of observing the whole sentence. For example, for the question "What will be prevented if suppliers ... customers?", the SpanBERT-base model will output the wrong answer – "using Avnet" that is close to the question in the context – while the correct answer – "investment in sales and engineering" is ignored. These comparisons provide evidence that our method is beneficial in address + +ing the spurious features of sentence order for QA models. This can be because the well-designed prompt combined with LP-FT helps QA models understand the context better. + +# 6 Conclusion + +We introduce a zero-shot cross-domain QA task and present a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method by combining prompt with a linear-probing finetuning strategy, providing theoretical proof that the proposed method can enhance the model's indomain performance and out-of-domain generalizability, and empirically showing that the Prompt LP-FT method consistently benefits the QA models. Experimental results show that (1) current methods still have a lag much behind human-level towards the cross-domain QA generalization; (2) our method brings larger performance gains for generative models than discriminative models; (3) the use of the prompt-based LP-FT in other NLP tasks is worth trying. Meanwhile, the emergent ability of LLMs will definitely decrease the challenge of the current cross-domain QA setting. Designing challenging datasets of cross-domain QA towards LLMs should be paid more attention in the future. + +# Limitation + +Our method has a few limitations which may inspire future work. First, the prompt templates are manually designed, although we've introduced the rules and intuitions used in our implementation. Second, the proposed method may have low scalability to long text. Because we add the prompt at the end of the context, the prompt would be truncated if the context itself exceeds the maximum acceptable token length of the model. + +# Ethics Statement + +This paper honors the ACL Code of Ethics. Public available datasets are used to establish our results. No private data and crowd-sourcing work are used to produce predictions. The code and data are open-sourced under the CC-BY-NC-SA license. + +# Acknowledgement + +This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant number 18/CRT/6183, the financial support of the Pioneer and "Leading Goose" R&D Program of Zhejiang under Grant Number 2022SDXHDX0003 and the 72nd round of the Chinese Post-doctoral Science Foundation project 2022M722836. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Yue Zhang is the corresponding author. + +# References + +Akari Asai, Xinyan Yu, Jungo Kasai, and Hanna Hajishirzi. 2021. One question answering model for many languages with cross-lingual dense passage retrieval. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:7547-7560. +Gerlof Bouma. 2009. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of GSCL, 30:31-40. +Yu Cao, Meng Fang, Baosheng Yu, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. 2020. Unsupervised domain adaptation on reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7480-7487. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. + +Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Drop: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00161. +Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond iid: three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 3477-3488. +Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112. +Alon Jacovi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Shauli Ravfogel, Yanai Elazar, Yejin Choi, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Contrastive explanations for model interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1597-1611. +Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77. +Divyansh Kaushik, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary Lipton. 2020. Learning the difference that makes a difference with counterfactually-augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Divyansh Kaushik, Amrith Setlur, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary C Lipton. 2021. Explaining the efficacy of counterfactually augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Tomas Kocisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gabor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328. +Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Matthew Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. 2022. Finetuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880. + +Patrick Lewis, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Question and answer test-train overlap in open-domain question answering datasets. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1000-1008. +Linqing Liu, Patrick Lewis, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2021a. Challenges in generalization in open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01156. +Nelson F Liu, Matt Gardner, Yonatan Belinkov, Matthew E Peters, and Noah A Smith. 2019a. Linguistic knowledge and transferability of contextual representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1073-1094. +Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Jinghui Lu, Linyi Yang, Brian Mac Namee, and Yue Zhang. 2022. A rationale-centric framework for human-in-the-loop machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12918. +Ruotian Ma, Xin Zhou, Tao Gui, Yiding Tan, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. Template-free prompt tuning for few-shot ner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13532. +Andrey Malinin, Neil Band, Yarin Gal, Mark Gales, Alexander Ganshin, German Chesnokov, Alexey Noskov, Andrey Ploskonosov, Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Ivan Provilkov, Vatsal Raina, Vyas Raina, Denis Roginskiy, Mariya Shmatova, Panagiotis Tigas, and Boris Yangel. 2021. Shifts: A dataset of real distributional shift across multiple large-scale tasks. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2). +Itzik Malkiel and Lior Wolf. 2021. Maximal multiverse learning for promoting cross-task generalization of fine-tuned language models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 187-199. +Stephen L Morgan and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press. + +Jong-Hoon Oh, Kentaro Torisawa, Chikara Hashimoto, Ryu Iida, Masahiro Tanaka, and Julien Kloetzer. 2016. A Semi-Supervised Learning Approach to Why-Question Answering. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1). +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21:1-67. +Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392. +Priyanka Sen and Amir Saffari. 2020. What do models learn from question answering datasets? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2429-2438, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Nilesh Tripuraneni, Michael Jordan, and Chi Jin. 2020. On the theory of transfer learning: The importance of task diversity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7852-7862. +Adam Trischler, Tong Wang, Xingdi Yuan, Justin Harris, Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, and Kaheer Suleman. 2017. NewsQA: A machine comprehension dataset. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 191-200, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Neeraj Varshney, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Investigating selective prediction approaches across several tasks in iid, ood, and adversarial settings. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1995–2002. +Cunxiang Wang, Pai Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Can generative pre-trained language models serve as knowledge bases for closed-book qa? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3241-3251. +Yufei Wang, Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Huang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, and Daxin Jiang. 2022. Promda: Prompt-based data augmentation for low-resource nlu tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4242-4255. +Zhao Wang and Aron Culotta. 2021. Robustness to spurious correlations in text classification via automatically generated counterfactuals. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 14024-14031. + +Dirk Weissenborn, Georg Wiese, and Laura Seiffe. 2017. Making neural QA as simple as possible but not simpler. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 271-280, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 38-45. + +Sen Wu, Hongyang R Zhang, and Christopher Ré. 2020. Understanding and improving information transfer in multi-task learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. + +Linyi Yang, Jiazheng Li, Pádraig Cunningham, Yue Zhang, Barry Smyth, and Ruihai Dong. 2021. Exploring the efficacy of automatically generated counterfactuals for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 306-316. + +Linyi Yang, Zhen Wang, Yuxiang Wu, Jie Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Towards fine-grained causal reasoning and qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07408. + +Xiang Yue, Ziyu Yao, and Huan Sun. 2022. Synthetic question value estimation for domain adaptation of question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1340-1351. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Template Comparison + +As we see in Table 5, changing "But" in the template to "And" alters the logical relationship between the preceding and following sentences, which had an impact of more than $1\%$ on the performance. + +# A.2 Template Engineering + +The main objective of applying prompt templates is to enhance the model's out-of-domain performance by extracting invariant features between different domain questions. Therefore, the first rule is that a designed template should avoid containing domain-related information. For example, "This [health] company [Hologic] is mentioned in the question." should not be an ideal template because it involves extra domain information that Hologic is a health company. + +![](images/6224c7afe454ee5faa74ac45e0858e1cfca9ec2afea3b6c13d4ca1ee7592bfe3.jpg) +Figure 5: The word overlap between different datasets considered by the CasualQA task. + +![](images/d8f7bb484206752286d47c8a42d189ac919e49a4879ddb6c77f57ceb6da9e0b1.jpg) +Figure 6: The word overlap between SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets. + +Second, a template should be a proper English sentence with correct spelling, no grammar mistakes, and proper semantic meaning. Our experiment shows that one wrong word in a template may cause significant performance variation (see Appendix A.1). + +Third, since templates are concatenated at the end of the context, templates cannot be too long. If a template has almost the same length as the context or even longer, it will double the amount of input data and thus increase the computational cost of the model; more importantly, it may deprive the leader role of the context, which may make the model too generalized to capture the answers. + +Fourth, there are two main varieties of prompt templates: cloze prompt and prefix prompt. (Liu et al., 2021b) Cloze prompt fill in the blanks of a textual string, and the prefix prompt continue a string prefix. Instead of using only one type, we include both variants of templates in the designed four prompt templates. + +According to these rules, we design four types of templates, of which each type has different sentence patterns. Template generalization is modulized as a two-step process: 1) generating the prompt words, and 2) filling in the blanks (Liu et al., 2021b). + +
TemplateF1
BaselineNone70.29
Experiment1"There is no important phrase in this query. +But also pay attention to these words: _”69.57
Experiment2"There is no important phrase in this query. +And also pay attention to these words: _”70.84
+ +# A.3 Template Designing + +Sentiment Templates Assume that a person unfamiliar with the restaurant industry tries to answer the question, "Why the global restaurant sector has come under pressure?" This person can easily find that this question concerns the factors that adversely affect restaurants even without industry knowledge. Therefore, looking for negative words from the context, like destroyed, restricted etc., may help to locate the correct answer. Based on the intuition above, we implement a sentiment analysis framework * to give each question and each word in the answer sentence a sentiment score. Afterwards, the highest positive or negative scores are selected to be used as the prompt words. Second, the sentient of the question and the prompt words are filled in the blanks of sentiment templates. + +Named Entity Templates Unique entities mentioned in a question could hint at answering the question. Hence, a named entity recognition framework is applied to each question. We intend to recognize five types of entities mentioned in the question: Person, Organization, Location, Country, and Date. Entities not included in the five types are assigned as "Other" entities. Step two fills the recognized entities in the blanks as prompt words. + +Phrase Template Phrases are usually the question subject, potentially valuable in locating the correct answer. A simple strategy is designed to find out the phrases composed of an adjective(s) and noun(s). For example, "hybrid environments", "software-as-a-service applications", and "remote access" are phrases in a question. These phrases are selected as prompt words and filled in the blanks in step two. + +Table 5: The effect of using an improper word in a template. + +
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
SpanBERT-base84.7762.6284.8564.04
SpanBERT-large85.4061.4185.5362.26
+ +Table 6: Domain-independent QA results of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model. + +
DomainConIndTech
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Con85.8460.6484.8056.0185.5455.09
Ind85.7666.6685.8467.2185.3465.57
Tech80.2458.0881.5158.5881.9858.08
+ +Table 7: Out-of-domain test results of SpanBERT-base. + +# A.4 Word Overlap between Datasets + +Fig 5 and 6 show the word overlap percentage between different domains of the CausalQA dataset, and also on datasets from different domains, i.e., between the SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets. + +# A.5 Experiment Results on Other Models + +On both domain-independent QA and cross-domain QA tasks, the SpanBERT model achieves state-of-the-art performance. Table 6 shows the domain-independent QA result of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model, which also provides evidence that the proposed method works on the large model which can achieve better results than it on the base model. Tab7 shows the result of the Span-BERT OOD test. + +Tab 8 shows the cross-domain QA experiment results on T5-base. We show that our method can significantly improve the cross-domain QA performance compared to the standard fine-tuning results based on the CausalQA dataset. + +Tab 9, 10 and Fig 7 are the ablation study results on RoBERTa and BART models for cross-domain QA task on the CausalQA dataset. + +# A.6 Details of experimental results + +The experiment is conducted on a GTX 3090 TI with 24GB graphics RAM size. The average training time for each model on the domain-independent QA task is around 2.5 hours, and on the cross-domain QA task is around 30 minutes on CausalQA dataset. On SQuAD and NewsQA dataset, the average training time for each model is around 3 hours. For each experiment setting, we run 10 repeated experiments and report the average results. The model name indicates the base model is no size + +
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri59.3015.7456.6918.6056.1317.67
Ours(+2.19)(+3.87)(+1.79)(+0.84)(+2.24)(+1.77)
IndOri59.8524.7261.4124.0359.9425.27
Ours(+2.52)(-0.68)(+0.06)(-3.81)(+1.64)(-4.51)
TechOri55.3017.8554.4116.8358.7620.20
Ours(+3.70)(+5.38)(+4.83)(+5.39)(+0.53)(+2.02)
+ +Table 8: Out-of-domain test results of the T5-base model. Numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method. + +![](images/b5a937991c85a82586fa99a17d64963fd96132d98841d8ca688d04f8a726f491.jpg) +Figure 7: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model for cross-domain QA. + +specification, e.g. "BART+P" indicates the BART-base model plus the prompting method. We also implemented large models to prove the effectiveness of the proposed models. + +For the hyperparameter tuning, we split the whole dataset into train/Validation/test sets on the domain-independent QA task and use the validation set for hyperparameter tuning. On the cross-domain QA task, we split the dataset of each domain into train/Validation/test sets and use the validation set that comes from the same domain with the training set for hyperparameter tuning. The criterion used to select the hyperparameter is the F1 on the validation set. We first select a series of candidate values of a hyperparameter through uniform sampling from a reasonable range, then select the value that achieves the best F1 on the validation set. Three repeated trials decide the value of a hyperparameter. For example, we give the best-performing RoBERTa-base model configuration on ConsumerTrain/Technology-Test experiment as follows: the learning rate for linear-probing is $10^{-6}$ , the number of epochs for linear probing is 3, the learning rate for fine-tuning is $10^{-5}$ , the training batch size is 4, parameters are updated every 8 batches, and the number of epochs for fine-tuning is 14. + +
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: RoBERTaCon78.2051.3872.4947.6874.6349.07
Ind77.8149.4580.0558.4677.9148.35
Tec75.5455.0573.9948.9876.4954.04
RoBERTa + LP-FTCon75.0947.6873.8246.7575.7250.00
Ind78.8148.9081.01*51.1076.7150.00
Tec79.2356.06*77.5055.0578.2253.53
RoBERTa + PromptCon78.97*53.2477.09*50.00*77.93*51.85*
Ind78.4556.2880.0561.74*80.05*57.92*
Tec77.4654.5478.50*57.58*80.62*58.08*
RoBERTa + LP-FT + PromptCon78.3953.24*75.0748.6177.4649.54
Ind80.55*59.02*80.7060.6679.0057.37
Tec77.93*55.0576.7056.0676.7653.54
+ +Table 9: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model. Also, the results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test ( $P < 0.01$ ). + +
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: BARTCon70.2924.5368.4424.0768.6123.61
Ind70.1131.3172.5332.4169.5327.77
Tec69.8930.3069.5327.7771.7933.83
BART + LP-FTCon70.81*24.0770.22*24.5368.2623.61
Ind70.6130.7773.3931.8770.9128.57
Tec71.0835.3572.3130.3072.3733.33
BART + PromptCon70.4127.31*69.1023.1569.2023.61
Ind74.42*42.07*76.2737.1673.0034.43
Tec72.2032.3272.5130.373.3235.35*
BART + LP-FT + PromptCon70.6525.0170.1426.85*72.00*28.24*
Ind74.0636.0676.58*39.89*73.37*37.70*
Tec72.67*33.3372.96*31.31*74.02*34.34
+ +Table 10: Ablation study results based on the BART-base model for cross-domain QA. The results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test ( $P < 0.01$ ). + +# A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +The limitation-related discussion can be found in the section "Limitation". + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Related text can be found in the "Abstract" and "Introduction" sections. + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +We have not used AI writing assistants when working on this paper. + +# B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +We used the Huggingface framework in implementing our model. Related text can be found in the "4.2 Baseline Models" section. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +Related text can be found in the "4.2 Baseline Models" section. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +Related text can be found in the "Ethics Statement" section. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +The usage of the Huggingface framework in this paper was consistent with their intended use. Related text can be found in the "4.2 Baseline Models" section. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +All datasets used in this paper are dominant question-answering datasets created and used by many previous works. Related text can be found in the "4.1 Datasets" section. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Related text can be found in the "4.1 Datasets" section. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Related text can be found in the "4.1 Datasets" section. + +# C Did you run computational experiments? + +Related text can be found in the "A.6 Details of experimental results" section. + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Related text can be found in the "4.2 Baseline Models" and "A.6 Details of experimental results" sections. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +Related text can be found in the "4.2 Baseline Models" section. + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc, or just a single run? + +Related text can be found in the "5 Results and Discussion" section. + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +Related text can be found in the "A.3 Template Designing" section. + +# D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/images.zip b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7100e623ac8a750e0c2de947e4eceb37dc43a32 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d69bdf3de2b6b13a8b70b3ea81266e867a1423d56c2a1935ec13ad2eb2da6786 +size 871259 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/layout.json b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f148efc54f68604a04d215c2c1a12eefb611d12 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11614 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 67, + 437, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 67, + 437, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 67, + 437, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain QA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 88, + 456, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 88, + 456, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 88, + 456, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yingjie Niu* 1,2, Linyi Yang* 3,4, Ruihai Dong1,2, Yue Zhang 3,4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 114, + 439, + 142 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 114, + 439, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 114, + 439, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 114, + 439, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 School of Computer Science, University College Dublin" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 SFI Centre for Research Training in Machine Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 142, + 480, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 142, + 480, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 142, + 480, + 156 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 142, + 480, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Institute of Advanced Technology, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 156, + 409, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 156, + 409, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 156, + 409, + 170 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 156, + 409, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " School of Engineering, Westlake University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 171, + 444, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 171, + 444, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 171, + 444, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yingjie.niu}@ucdconnect.ie,{ruihai.dong}@ucd.ie" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 186, + 411, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 186, + 411, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 186, + 411, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yanglinyi, zhangyue}@westlake.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There have been growing concerns regarding the out-of-domain generalization ability of natural language processing (NLP) models, particularly in question-answering (QA) tasks. Current synthesized data augmentation methods for QA are hampered by increased training costs. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach that combines prompting methods and linear probing then fine-tuning strategy, which does not entail additional cost. Our method has been theoretically and empirically shown to be effective in enhancing the generalization ability of both generative and discriminative models. Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, with an average increase in F1 score of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.5\\% - 7.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Furthermore, our method can be easily integrated into any pre-trained models and offers a promising solution to the under-explored cross-domain QA task. We release our source code at Github*." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 488, + 154, + 502 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 488, + 154, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 488, + 154, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question answering (QA) models (Oh et al., 2016; Trischler et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2021; Gu et al., 2021) aim to answer passage-based questions automatically with the help of facts in a given context (sometimes referred to as machine reading comprehension (Dua et al., 2019; Sen and Saffari, 2020)). Over the last few years, pre-trained models have achieved great progress on a variety of large-scale datasets, e.g., SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017), DROP (Dua et al., 2019), CoRA (Asai et al., 2021), and NarrativeQA (Kocisky et al., 2018). However, existing methods can suffer significant performance degradation when the tuned system is directly applied to out-of-domain examples (Gururangan et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020; Tripuraneni et al., 2020; Kaushik et al., 2020; Malinin et al., 2021; Varshney et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 210, + 520, + 319 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 210, + 520, + 319 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 210, + 520, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 210, + 520, + 319 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7f0d2b9ce3468322c579bb135456a1a6ff371208c1001a88745c5fdba38d0b11.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 350 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Cross-domain QA task consists of three datasets from different domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper focuses on a novel cross-domain QA task where we assume models trained on the source domain can be generalized to the target domain, where no labeled or unlabeled data is available. As shown in Figure 1, QA pairs from different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions. For example, in the technology field, the context can frequently contain \"e-commerce\" and \"network\". While in the pharmaceutical sector, the context can consist of \"COVID-19\", \"vaccine\", and \"diagnostic\" more frequently. Cross-domain QA poses significant challenges to real-world scenarios, and it is proved that even large-scale pre-trained models (Gu et al., 2021) can still encounter performance degradation under domain generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these drawbacks, we introduce a novel cross-domain QA setting, focusing on the methods that consistently improve the domain generalization performance without additional computational costs. Intuitively, cross-domain QA can benefit from prompting in which instances from different domains can share a unified set of label words. Thus, no additional parameters can carry domain-specific information to hinder the OOD generalization for an unseen domain. However, using the prompt method solely could increase the risk of overfitting and bring limited benefits, as prompt templates are fixed, which may be learned as spurious features by models. Thus, we consider" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 256, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 256, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 256, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*These authors contributed equally to this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 262, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 262, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 262, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\\*https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1298" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 456, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 456, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 456, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1298-1313" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "using the linear-probing and then fine-tuning (LP-FT) strategy to reduce the reliance between prompt patterns with labels by freezing pre-trained parameters. In this way, LP-FT can benefit cross-domain QA by preventing pre-trained features from being distorted when tuning on a specific domain (Kumar et al., 2022). Prompt-based LP-FT method does not introduce new parameters, so the performance decay when training on a source domain and testing on a new target domain can be reduced without entailing additional cost." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Under the LP-FT framework, we introduce four prompt types to extract invariant features in different domains: question type, sentiment, named entity, and key phrase. These prompts aim to increase the question similarity and benefit the model in generalizing to out-of-domain questions. Existing prompting methods have not been applied to natural language processing tasks beyond simple fine-tuning settings. To enable promoting methods to adapt LP-FT, we theoretically prove that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for prompting methods (Section 3.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 292, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 292, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 292, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We experiment on three different domain datasets (Figure 1). Results show that our prompt-based LP-FT method significantly improves the performance of cross-domain QA models on either the standard hold-out or OOD tests, with an average increase in F1 of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 292, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.5\\% -7.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 292, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to baselines. Also, our method consistently outperforms the standard fine-tuning strategy on both discriminative and generative models. Besides, we provide an in-depth analysis of the ablation study towards the OOD robustness that details the efficacy of LP-FT and prompting methods, respectively. To our knowledge, we are the first to present a new zero-shot cross-domain QA task and propose a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method. All resources are available at https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 160, + 626 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 160, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 160, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Out-of-domain performance degradation has attracted considerable research interest recently. A line of work (Morgan and Winship, 2015; Wang and Culotta, 2021; Kaushik et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Malkiel and Wolf, 2021; Lu et al., 2022) aims to improve models' generalization ability on text classification. Differently, we investigate the OOD generalization problem on the QA task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lewis et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2021) find that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60 - 70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of test-time answers of popular open-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "domain QA benchmark datasets exist in the training set, and it is proved that training set memory plays a vital role in testing. Liu et al. (2021a) empirically prove that language models suffer performance degradation when there is no train-test set overlapping. To test the actual generalization ability of QA models, several novel QA datasets have been constructed and released, focusing on evaluating QA models on out-of-domain generalization ability (Gu et al., 2021). Yang et al. (2022) present the first cross-domain QA dataset and observe a performance decay problem regarding the OOD test. Many existing methods intend to improve the OOD performance of QA models through data augmentation. Yue et al. (2022) introduce a synthesizing question-answer pairs method to improve target-domain QA performance. In contrast, we propose a prompt-based method combined with linear probing and then fine-tuning, which is more computationally efficient and does not require target domain annotations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 527, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 527, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 527, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt-based methods on pre-trained language models have received considerable research interest. The paradigm \"pre-train, prompt, and predict\" replaces the \"pre-train, fine-tune\" procedure for improved few-shot learning (Liu et al., 2021b). Prompt-based methods have been applied not only in sentence-level few-shot learning tasks, such as named entity recognition (Ma et al., 2021) but also in sophisticated learning tasks like natural language understanding (Wang et al., 2022). However, little work applies prompts on the cross-domain QA tasks (Jacovi et al., 2021). We leverage the fixed-format characteristic of the prompt to extract the invariant features in the changing dataset to enhance the OOD generalization of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instead of fine-tuning, linear probing is an alternative to tuning a pre-trained model on a downstream task. Liu et al. (2019a); Tripuraneni et al. (2020) examine the representations produced by several recent pre-trained language models and find that linear models trained on top of frozen contextual representations are competitive with state-of-the-art task-specific fine-tuned models in many cases but fail in tasks where fine-grained language knowledge is required. Kumar et al. (2022) theoretically prove that the linear-probing then fine-tuning (LP-FT) approach can enhance the OOD generalization ability of pre-trained models. In our work, we are the first to provide theoretical evidence that LP-FT still holds consistently better robustness for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1299" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 69, + 508, + 311 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 69, + 508, + 311 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 69, + 508, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 69, + 508, + 311 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4e7641f19c292317014c7afabe91abaae50e0248ae859b0aaf28cb16044dfa13.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 322, + 525, + 406 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 322, + 525, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 322, + 525, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The workflow of the prompt-based linear-probing then fine-tuning strategy. The bottom part shows the template engineering process where we add a prompt for each sample. The middle part represents the feature space of the Prompt LP-FT model and baseline models. Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains. The top part demonstrates the linear probing and then fine-tuning process. The \"Q\", \"C\" and \"P\" represent \"Question\", \"Context\" and \"Prompt\" in a sample, respectively (in bottom)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 193, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 193, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 193, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "prompting methods in NLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 130, + 475 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 130, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 130, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2 illustrates the workflow of the Prompt-based LP-FT method. We first generate a prompt for each input sample through template engineering and prompt designing (§3.1). Then, the source domain dataset with prompts is used for linear probing and then fine-tuning (§3.2) a pre-trained model. (top). Compared with the baseline model, in the feature space, the prompt-based LPFT model is superior in two respects: the distance between the feature distributions of the two domains is reduced, and the features learned by the model are closer to the intersection of the two domains (middle). The feature space demonstrates how the prompt-based method and the LP-FT strategy benefit the cross-domain QA, respectively, and also shows the motivation for using prompt-based LP-FT to benefit the cross-domain QA task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 189, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 189, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 189, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Template Designing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We take a Template Engineering process to look for a prompt template that results in the most ef" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 526, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 526, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 526, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "fective performance on a given task. The template designing rules can be found in appendix A.2. The prompt design is inspired by the process of a nonnative speaker (or a non-professional reader) reading articles (or professional documents) and answering questions. They may lack some depth of knowledge, such as the meanings of less commonly used words (or domain-specific knowledge). Language models may encounter similar situations in the cross-domain QA task. We design four types of templates. Figure 3 gives an example of a question-type template. Other template designs can be found in appendix A.3. Below, we take the question-type template as an example to illustrate the template designing process:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question-type Templates. Suppose that for a given question, \"Why have we increased our projections for cancer drug Loxo305 and diabetes drug tripeptide is useful?\", a human tester tries to find the answer from the article. In the question, users might not understand tokens such as Loxo305, diabetes, tripeptide, etc. However, if the user is aware that the question might be about \"Why something is useful?\", then she/he can search" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1300" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 75, + 274, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 75, + 274, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 75, + 274, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 75, + 274, + 190 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "025c03a4b4533ea8239ebbfc5ef58f9d07dffe6188147a5d5f5ac670f80347ee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 203, + 270, + 217 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 203, + 270, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 203, + 270, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Generating question-type prompts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 290, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "some keywords such as because, as, and since from the article and the context following these words, which might help her/him to find the correct answer. For each type of question, some specific words might help to locate their answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 290, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 290, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 290, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We consider four typical types of questions. For each question type, we first find out the most related words with it, such as because, since with the question type why, by measuring Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) scores (Bouma, 2009) between candidate words and the question type. Afterward, we select the 50 most related words to generate a prompt for each question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Loss Functions. For a prompt-based QA task, given a question-context-prompt tuple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q,C,P)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we calculate the probability of each word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " being the start position or end position of the correct answer for discriminative models as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 485, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 485, + 290, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 485, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p \\left(c _ {n} \\mid Q, C, P\\right) = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(W _ {\\text {h e a d}} h _ {c _ {n}} + b _ {\\text {h e a d}}\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "f3e9d9f134f3f5b7f6b964b0305b54f4215ffd9bd601cc1281327760f984e523.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_q \\times d_{word}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_c \\times d_{word}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P \\in \\mathbb{R}^{s_p \\times d_{word}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the question, context and prompt, respectively. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_q / s_c / s_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{word}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the question/context/prompt sentence length and the word embedding dimension, respectively. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{c_n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the feature representation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q, C, P)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " concatenated on the first dimension produced by a pretrained model, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{head} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{\\nu \\times d_h}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{head} \\in \\mathbb{R}^\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the dimension of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{c_n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the length of answer sentence. The loss function is the sum of the cross entropy for start and end positions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 664, + 289, + 698 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 664, + 289, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 664, + 289, + 698 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {d i s} = - \\sum_ {n = 1} ^ {m} \\log p \\left(c _ {n} | Q, C, P\\right) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "2c14620fe3780f80fc8205804524a78ddac069048432ebc9e57250a10c5b8f36.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 239, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 239, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 239, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 239, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 239, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of words in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 239, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 239, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 289, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We regard the QA task as a Seq2Seq generation task for generative models and use the LM loss," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 749, + 289, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 749, + 289, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 749, + 289, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {g e n}} = - \\sum_ {n} \\log p \\left(c _ {n} \\mid c _ {< n}, Q, C, P\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "76f8bc0ae394cce916d5da2a2ceb1130cff57ef7dc7751093abc5dff08afd3bb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 85 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{< n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 481, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the generated words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 484, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 484, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 484, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Linear Probing then Fine-tuning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The OOD generalization problem is defined as follows (Kumar et al., 2022): given a predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": to map inputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to outputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For some loss function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the predictor in-domain performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{id}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and out-of-domain performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{ood}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 188, + 523, + 216 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 188, + 523, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 188, + 523, + 216 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {i d} (f) = \\underset {(X, \\mathbf {y}) \\sim p _ {i d}} {\\mathbb {E}} [ \\mathcal {L} (f (X)), \\mathbf {y} ] \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "99460c44faa74d7d92de03c2ec4d87da6d37153e26005620079f88737dea06f1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 214, + 490, + 237 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 214, + 490, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 214, + 490, + 237 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {o o d} (f) = \\underset {(X, \\mathbf {y}) \\sim p _ {o o d}} {\\mathbb {E}} [ \\mathcal {L} (f (X)), \\mathbf {y} ]", + "image_path": "007b9a05055c2d021fdd64e21e5c2f3acf7d7ca9705e6ede12752203792b14a6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where the predictor is evaluated on test samples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(X, \\mathbf{y})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " drawn from in-domain distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{id}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and also evaluated on test samples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(X, \\mathbf{y})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " drawn from out-of-domain distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{ood}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To simplify the formula representation, in this paper, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the question, and context (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "); " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the answer sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The final predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is parameterized as a feature extractor and a linear \"head\". Hence, the training loss is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 386, + 524, + 403 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 386, + 524, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 386, + 524, + 403 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\mathcal {L}} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = \\left| \\left| X B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v} - \\mathbf {y} \\right| \\right| _ {2} ^ {2} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "92b9a952dd17948882288e106b5a92ee09f0a96fd37bbf15c9778c5ed39a46b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the linear head and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the feature extractor. We assume that the initial feature extractor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is obtained from the pre-trained model, considering two methods to learn a predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{\\mathbf{v},B}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": 1) linear probing where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B = B_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the linear head is obtained by minimizing some loss on the training data (Liu et al., 2019a), and 2) fine-tuning where both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are updated on the training data with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " initialized as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Kumar et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 414, + 556 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 414, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 414, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Theoretical Proof" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We prove that linear probing and then fine-tuning improves the results for prompt tuning by extending the proof for standard fine-tuning (Kumar et al., 2022). In particular, the derivative of Eq 5 with respect to the feature extractor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 638, + 524, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 638, + 524, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 638, + 524, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_ {B} \\hat {\\mathcal {L}} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \\mathbf {v} \\left(\\mathbf {y} - X B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v}\\right) ^ {\\top} X \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "a99bb7ddce278d9554696c836394fee9ffb56938747405e394c13f760e662463.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For Eq 6, if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a sample extracted from a direction orthogonal subspace to the training subspace, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_B\\hat{\\mathcal{L}} (\\mathbf{v},B)U = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the training process on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will not decrease the loss on the orthogonal subspace. However, the gradient is not zero for directions in the ID subspace. This explains why fine-tuning can achieve a higher ID performance but a lower OOD performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1301" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our proposed prompt-based method, the prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is concatenated to the original " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (along the sentence length dimension), and the equation can be expressed below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 290, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_ {B} \\hat {\\mathcal {L}} _ {p} (\\mathbf {v}, B) = 2 \\mathbf {v} (Y - (X + P) B ^ {\\top} \\mathbf {v}) ^ {\\top} (X + P) \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "4426e27a6df73966bd202780ccde13ea4301c750ae7f59a0bd4968cdbb81ecfb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where assume that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is not orthogonal to the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or its orthogonal subspace. Consequently, we have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_B\\hat{\\mathcal{L}}_p(\\mathbf{v},B)(U + P)\\neq 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In this way, the training process on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " would modify the loss on the OOD samples with the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the linear probing and then fine-tuning method, the OOD error of fine-tuning is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 289, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\sqrt {L _ {o o d} \\left(\\mathbf {v} _ {f t} , B _ {f t} (t)\\right)} \\geq \\sigma \\frac {\\operatorname* {m i n} \\left(\\varphi , \\varphi^ {2} / \\left| \\left| w _ {*} \\right| \\right| _ {2}\\right)}{\\left(1 + \\left| \\left| w _ {*} \\right| \\right| _ {2}\\right) ^ {2}} \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "3283ac24154cef48d4dff2a9934be0bdd4bdb64a9594f992aeb55730ab575f4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_{ft}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B_{ft}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the linear head and feature extractor after fine-tuning. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a fixed parameter (Kumar et al., 2022) related to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{*} = \\mathbf{v}_{*}B_{*},\\mathbf{v}_{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B_{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the optimal parameters. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varphi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the initial head alignment error " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varphi = |(\\mathbf{v}_0^\\top \\mathbf{v}_*)^2 -(\\mathbf{v}_*^\\top \\mathbf{v}_*)^2|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In order to decrease the OOD error, the head " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has to be as close to the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as possible. It is proved that initializing the head with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_{lp}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (LP-FT) can decrease the OOD error (Kumar et al., 2022) more than random initializing head with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (FT) since " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is far away from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}_{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Converting input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X + P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " does not affect " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{\\min(\\varphi,\\varphi^2/||w_*||_2)}{(1+||w_*||_2)^2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", implying the LP-FT strategy can be applied after we introduce " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As a result, the Prompt-based LP-FT strategy is used to avoid distorting pre-trained features." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 191, + 544 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 191, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 191, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce experiments' datasets, baseline methods, and evaluation metrics in this section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 135, + 603 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 135, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 135, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the proposed method on three datasets: Causal QA (Yang et al., 2022), SQuAD 1.1 (Weissenborn et al., 2017) and NewsQA (Trischler et al., 2017). All datasets are in English. Domain-related information is provided in the CausalQA dataset, which is valuable for cross-domain question-answering tasks. For the in-domain test, we experiment on the whole CausalQA dataset before splitting into domainsdomain-independent QA) and on each particular domain after splitting into domains. The distribution change and word overlap between datasets can be found in appendix A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the OOD test, we have two experiment setups: Setup 1) we split the CausalQA dataset, based on the domain information, into mutually exclusive training/validation/testing sets in the same ratio of 8:1:1. Setup 2) we conduct OOD tests across different datasets from different domains. In cross-domain QA, both the training and validation sets of the source domain are used in the training process for hyperparameter searching. The testing sets of source and target domains are used for in-domain evaluation and OOD tests, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 406, + 241 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 406, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 406, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Baseline Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the novel cross-domain QA setting, we establish baselines using generative models – BART (Lewis et al., 2020), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) – and discriminative models – BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019b), and SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020) with the help of Huggingface framework (Wolf et al., 2020). We also implement the commonly used domain adaptation method in previous works (Yue et al., 2022; Cao et al., 2020) to compare with our method. The AdamW optimizer has a default learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10^{-5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Other hyper-parameters are tuned by optimizing the performance on the validation set. The standard fine-tuning strategy is considered a baseline when compared to our methods by using four strategies:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 475, + 526, + 681 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 475, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 475, + 524, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 475, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Baseline: we select the RoBERTa-base model as the baseline of discriminative methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 513, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 513, + 525, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 513, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Baseline + P: we adopt the same baseline models and fine-tuning strategy, only replacing the original dataset with the prompted dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 562, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 562, + 526, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 562, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Baseline + LP-FT: we first tune the last linear layer (the \"Head\" for question answering) parameters and replace the head parameters initialized by Huggingface framework models with the head parameters after linear probing. The original dataset is used in this section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 653, + 524, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 653, + 524, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 653, + 524, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Baseline " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 653, + 524, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\mathrm{P} + \\mathrm{LP}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 653, + 524, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -FT: the LP-FT strategy is adopted on the dataset with the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 420, + 713 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 420, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 420, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following previous work (Gu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), The Macro F1-score (F1) and exact match (EM) are used to evaluate the model's performance. If the predicted answer matches the true" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1302" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 156 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 156 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 156 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
BARTRoBERTa
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnologyTrain/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri70.29(+0.36)24.53(+0.47)68.44(+1.7)24.07(+2.78)68.61(+3.39)23.61(+4.63)ConOri78.20(+0.19)51.38(+1.86)72.49(+2.58)47.68(+0.93)74.63(+2.83)49.07(+0.47)
OursOurs
IndOri70.11(+3.95)31.31(+4.75)72.53(+4.05)32.41(+7.48)69.63(+3.84)27.27(+9.93)IndOri77.81(+2.74)49.45(+9.57)80.05(+0.65)58.46(+2.20)77.91(+1.09)48.35(+9.02)
OursOurs
TechOri69.89(+2.78)30.30(+3.03)69.53(+2.98)27.77(+3.45)71.79(+2.23)33.83(+0.51)TechOri75.54(+2.39)55.05(+0.00)73.99(+2.71)48.98(+7.08)76.49(+0.27)54.04(-0.50)
OursOurs
", + "image_path": "a575b6ab365004cb7f489a25ccf35a1f05344faba7e8e8259417d5d22a8451f0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 296, + 322 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Out-of-domain test results of the BART-base model (Left) and RoBERTa-base (Right) on CausalQA (Setup 1). The numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method. \"Ori\" denotes the original fine-tuning method, and \"Ours\" denotes the Prompt-based LP-FT method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 296, + 322 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 296, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 296, + 322 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
BART74.1636.5073.2634.49
BART + LP-FT74.0635.0373.8334/00
BART + P75.6037.4775.3337.66
BART + P + LP-FT77.6041.2276.9039.44
RoBERTa83.9761.8283.4561.28
RoBERTa + LP-FT84.8062.1583.4961.18
RoBERTa + P84.5562.2083.6161.34
RoBERTa + P + LP-FT84.5662.1583.8761.42
", + "image_path": "3c31607025321f98947ff44b7146956da463795d0a4428db0959ac51844c4333.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 390 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Results of Domain-Independent QA on CausalQA dataset. 'F1' refers to Macro F1, EM refers to exact match. The model name refers to base models, \"+\" denotes the base model+prompt method, \"+LP-FT\" denotes the base model+LP-FT method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "answer for each question-answer pair, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{EM} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Otherwise, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{EM} = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The Macro F1 score is defined as the mean of token-level F1 scores:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 456, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 456, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 456, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "M a c r o F 1 - s c o r e = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {N} F 1 - s c o r e _ {i} \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "b1e6d316d3c558906995a38aaa2e42080f9e536b9a1495ad734105c94293ca84.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the token index and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of the golden answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 206, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 206, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 206, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Results and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 290, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method is applied to both domain-independent QA tasks (§5.1) and cross-domain QA tasks (§5.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 208, + 606 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 208, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 208, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 In-domain Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For domain-independent QA, the in-domain performance represents the model performance using the traditional hold-out test, where both the training set and test set come from the whole dataset without splitting domains. The domain-independent results are shown in Table 2, where the Prompt LP-FT method brings performance gain over both the BART model (in average " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+3.64\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in F1, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+4.95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in EM) and the RoBERTa model (in average " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+0.42\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in F1, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+0.14\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in EM). Taking the BART model as an example, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BART + LP - FT" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " achieves slightly better performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+0.57\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared with BART," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which shows the LP-FT method brings limited benefits to the model on the domain-independent QA task. However, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BART + P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+2.07\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BART" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " outperforms " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BART + LP - FT" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+0.57\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BART" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which shows that the prompt-based method can benefit the model without splitting domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 527, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 527, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 527, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 1, the numbers on the diagonal represent the ID performance on each domain, and the values in parentheses below represent the in-domain performance increase brought by our method (in average " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 527, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+2.21\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 527, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in F1 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 527, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+2.82\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 527, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in EM) (left). Though the performance gain on each domain varies, our method consistently improves the performance of in-domain evaluations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 464, + 441 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 464, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 464, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Out-of-domain performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results on CausalQA. The experiment results of cross-domain CausalQA are shown in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 \\times 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tables Table 1 where each row represents contrast experiments with the same testing data, and each column represents the model performance on different test sets. The numbers not on the diagonal represent the performance tested on a domain different from the training domain, called OOD test results. Overall, the proposed method benefits the OOD performance by an average of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+3.11\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in F1 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.76\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in EM on BART and by an average of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+2.39\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in F1 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.51\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in EM on RoBERTa. For example, by comparison in the same scenario, we find that the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test on BART " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+3.95\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is more significant than the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test based on RoBERTa " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+2.74\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Our method brings larger performance gains for generative models (BART) than discriminative models (RoBERTa). These results show that the performance benefits based on discriminative models are less than generative models by using Prompt LP-FT. Intuitively, this can be because the added prompt can be used directly to generate answers as we fine-tune BART" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1303" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 196 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 196 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
S->NS->CN->SN->CC->SC->N
RoBERTa37.6066.5849.8744.2219.447.45
RoBERTa+DA (Yue et al., 2022)38.2666.1450.3143.0522.747.15
RoBERTa+P38.17*66.8450.97*48.37*21.41*8.64*
RoBERTa+LPFT37.95*66.6050.28*45.86*20.92*7.5
RoBERTa+P+LPFT38.76*66.86*52.41*51.64*23.02*7.73*
BART33.7146.9743.4931.7826.148.69
BART+DA (Yue et al., 2022)35.0955.6544.0533.4726.989.02
BART+P36.81*56.22*43.61*31.9125.969.26*
BART+LPFT33.2953.29*44.05*31.9526.87*9.49*
BART+P+LPFT35.23*55.86*44.36*33.79*27.61*9.54*
", + "image_path": "2e4244a62a98811ff90c950fe2356384f6db9bf4a285d8425ac79004b408bb95.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 526, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 526, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: OOD test results on SQuAD (S), CausalQA (C), and NewsQA (N) (Setup 2). [S->N] represents that the model is trained on SQuAD while tested on NewsQA. “+P” represents the prompting methods. “+DA” represents the Domain Adaptation method (Yue et al., 2022). The proposed method shows statistically significant improvements compared to the baseline model indicated by * using Student T-test (p<0.01, 10-time run)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 166, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 166, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 166, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in a Seq2Seq manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 1, we compare the performance of BART on Consumer-Train/Consumer-Test to Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test. Our method improves the performance by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+0.36\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the consumer test set and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+3.95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " when testing on the samples from the industrial domain, indicating that the proposed method is better for cross-domain generalization. Moreover, the benefit on Consumer-Train/Technology-Test " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+2.78\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is relatively small compared to the improvement on Consumer-Train/Industrial-Test " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+3.95\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It hints that the same prompt has variant effects on different domains. This can be because different domains have intrinsically different feature distributions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OOD Tests Between Different Datasets. We show the OOD generalization results between different popular datasets in Table 3. It can be seen that the Prompt LP-FT method improves the OOD test performance of RoBERTa on average by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.54\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on three data sets and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for BART. It is worth noting that our method brings a performance improvement of up to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.42\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (NewsQA-CausalQA) on RoBERTa, while the maximum performance improvement reaches " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8.89\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 290, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (SQuAD-CausalQA) on BART. The result is consistent with the finding in Setup 1 that Prompt LP-FT can benefit generative models more than discriminative ones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is noteworthy that even though our method assumes that no target domain annotations are available (zero-shot), the baseline method using Domain Adaptation (DA) assumes that a small number of target annotations are available (few-shot), our method can consistently achieve better performance than the DA method in all six settings. These results based on the OOD generalization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 525, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "among three datasets suggest that Prompt LP-FT is a highly robust, easy-to-transfer, and convincing method to improve the cross-domain generalization ability of QA models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 380, + 355 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 380, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 380, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide discussion to understand better the relative contributions of Prompt LP-FT toward performance improvement, including the universality of our method, the ablation study, and case study." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Universality. The results in Sec 5.1, 5.2 show that our proposed method improves the OOD generalization performance of various models to varying degrees, with ID performance increasing as well. Experimental results on multiple models demonstrate that our method holds good portability and can benefit variant models, including generative (BART) and discriminative (RoBERTa) models. Results on more backbone models (e.g., T5 and SpanBERT) can be found in appendix A.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows an ablation study of Prompt-based LP-FT. We find that the combination of prompting methods with LP-FT achieves the best performance in four of six settings, illustrating the advantage of prompt-based LP-FT. In addition, BART+Prompt shows an absolute advantage compared to BART+LP-FT, which can be because prompts benefit the cross-domain QA task by introducing more background knowledge than the adjustment of the tuning strategy. The detailed ablation results are shown in Appendix A.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Case Study Table 4 presents a case study of four test samples. For each instance, we show the input context, the prompt sentence, and the output predicted by the baseline method and our method (Prompt LP-FT). It can be seen that the gold an" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1304" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Context & PromptQuestionGold AnswerBaseline OutputOur Output
Predictive Model: SpanBERT-base
As Terex has expanded its MP product line, it has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer demand. This may provide revenue synergies in the future......\nPrompt: To answer a "Why useful" question, you need to look for "allowing"Why Terex has expanded its MP product line is useful?gain greater insight into customerit has captured a larger global market share ofit has captured a larger global market share of the industry, allowing it to gain greater insight into customer
However, Avnet's management conceded...... Suppliers get access to a broad range of customers by using Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering teams. In exchange for these services, Avnet can generate ...... Prompt: The sentiment of this question is positive, you need to look for "significant"What will be prevented if suppliers get access to a broad range of customers?investment in sales and engineeringusing Avnetusing Avnet without having to make significant investment in sales and engineering
Generative Model: BART-base
At the end of 2020, the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period, to about 1,920 locations (around 2,100 including Petsense), driving sales and EPS compound annual growth rates over the past three years of 14% and 27%, respectively. We forecast that the firm will grow to around ...... Prompt: The entity "EPS" is mentioned in the question. This timing "annual" is mentioned in the question.Why sales and EPS compound annual growth rates increase?the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period14% and 27%the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five years
Finally, we view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand, which finds itself on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry over the medium to long term. Though Chipotle saw economic value destruction in 201 ...... Prompt: "restaurant industry" is an important phrase. And also pay attention to these words:"edge", "changes"What will happen if on the leading edge of most of the changes we expect to impact the restaurant industry?the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brandover the medium to long termwe view the likelihood of sustained economic value creation as quite high for the restaurant brand
", + "image_path": "10664241b463cd300e2f6285456dae05d7c0e6f7775dbb0411f4df9d11522959.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 525, + 392 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 525, + 392 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 525, + 392 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Case study of \"Why\" and \"What-if\" questions answering tasks based on the SpanBERT-base and BART-base models. The Gold Answer is highlighted using the green text, while the Incorrect Answer predicted by the baseline method is highlighted by the red text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 412, + 285, + 535 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 412, + 285, + 535 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 412, + 285, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 412, + 285, + 535 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "41ecdbec9c96dc387fd6db7e1feaea22c8a4d97cee48aa5d6c7ccf8932d66ecb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 289, + 571 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 289, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 289, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Ablation results based on the BART-base model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "svers are mostly included in the output of Prompt LP-FT, while the output of baseline models is prone to errors. Specifically, baseline models, including SpanBERT-base and BART-base, tend to output the answers closer to the question in the context instead of observing the whole sentence. For example, for the question \"What will be prevented if suppliers ... customers?\", the SpanBERT-base model will output the wrong answer – \"using Avnet\" that is close to the question in the context – while the correct answer – \"investment in sales and engineering\" is ignored. These comparisons provide evidence that our method is beneficial in address" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing the spurious features of sentence order for QA models. This can be because the well-designed prompt combined with LP-FT helps QA models understand the context better." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 381, + 500 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 381, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 381, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce a zero-shot cross-domain QA task and present a novel Prompt-based LP-FT method by combining prompt with a linear-probing finetuning strategy, providing theoretical proof that the proposed method can enhance the model's indomain performance and out-of-domain generalizability, and empirically showing that the Prompt LP-FT method consistently benefits the QA models. Experimental results show that (1) current methods still have a lag much behind human-level towards the cross-domain QA generalization; (2) our method brings larger performance gains for generative models than discriminative models; (3) the use of the prompt-based LP-FT in other NLP tasks is worth trying. Meanwhile, the emergent ability of LLMs will definitely decrease the challenge of the current cross-domain QA setting. Designing challenging datasets of cross-domain QA towards LLMs should be paid more attention in the future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1305" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 126, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 126, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 126, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method has a few limitations which may inspire future work. First, the prompt templates are manually designed, although we've introduced the rules and intuitions used in our implementation. Second, the proposed method may have low scalability to long text. Because we add the prompt at the end of the context, the prompt would be truncated if the context itself exceeds the maximum acceptable token length of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 226, + 158, + 238 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 226, + 158, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 226, + 158, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 292, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 292, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 292, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper honors the ACL Code of Ethics. Public available datasets are used to establish our results. No private data and crowd-sourcing work are used to produce predictions. The code and data are open-sourced under the CC-BY-NC-SA license." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 166, + 340 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 166, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 166, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant number 18/CRT/6183, the financial support of the Pioneer and \"Leading Goose\" R&D Program of Zhejiang under Grant Number 2022SDXHDX0003 and the 72nd round of the Chinese Post-doctoral Science Foundation project 2022M722836. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Yue Zhang is the corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 534, + 127, + 547 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 534, + 127, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 534, + 127, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Akari Asai, Xinyan Yu, Jungo Kasai, and Hanna Hajishirzi. 2021. One question answering model for many languages with cross-lingual dense passage retrieval. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:7547-7560." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 619, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 619, + 289, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 619, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gerlof Bouma. 2009. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of GSCL, 30:31-40." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yu Cao, Meng Fang, Baosheng Yu, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. 2020. Unsupervised domain adaptation on reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7480-7487." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 128 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Drop: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00161." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 138, + 526, + 195 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 138, + 526, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 138, + 526, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond iid: three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 3477-3488." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 283 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 294, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 294, + 525, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 294, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alon Jacovi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Shauli Ravfogel, Yanai Elazar, Yejin Choi, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Contrastive explanations for model interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1597-1611." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64-77." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Divyansh Kaushik, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary Lipton. 2020. Learning the difference that makes a difference with counterfactually-augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 494, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 494, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 494, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Divyansh Kaushik, Amrith Setlur, Eduard Hovy, and Zachary C Lipton. 2021. Explaining the efficacy of counterfactually augmented data. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomas Kocisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gabor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Matthew Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. 2022. Finetuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1306" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Question and answer test-train overlap in open-domain question answering datasets. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1000-1008." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 192 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linqing Liu, Patrick Lewis, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2021a. Challenges in generalization in open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01156." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 291 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nelson F Liu, Matt Gardner, Yonatan Belinkov, Matthew E Peters, and Noah A Smith. 2019a. Linguistic knowledge and transferability of contextual representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1073-1094." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 290, + 356 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 290, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 290, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019b. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinghui Lu, Linyi Yang, Brian Mac Namee, and Yue Zhang. 2022. A rationale-centric framework for human-in-the-loop machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12918." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 290, + 531 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 290, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 290, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruotian Ma, Xin Zhou, Tao Gui, Yiding Tan, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. Template-free prompt tuning for few-shot ner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13532." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 542, + 290, + 651 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 542, + 290, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 542, + 290, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrey Malinin, Neil Band, Yarin Gal, Mark Gales, Alexander Ganshin, German Chesnokov, Alexey Noskov, Andrey Ploskonosov, Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Ivan Provilkov, Vatsal Raina, Vyas Raina, Denis Roginskiy, Mariya Shmatova, Panagiotis Tigas, and Boris Yangel. 2021. Shifts: A dataset of real distributional shift across multiple large-scale tasks. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Itzik Malkiel and Lior Wolf. 2021. Maximal multiverse learning for promoting cross-task generalization of fine-tuned language models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 187-199." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen L Morgan and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jong-Hoon Oh, Kentaro Torisawa, Chikara Hashimoto, Ryu Iida, Masahiro Tanaka, and Julien Kloetzer. 2016. A Semi-Supervised Learning Approach to Why-Question Answering. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21:1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 212, + 525, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 212, + 525, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 212, + 525, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 525, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Priyanka Sen and Amir Saffari. 2020. What do models learn from question answering datasets? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2429-2438, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nilesh Tripuraneni, Michael Jordan, and Chi Jin. 2020. On the theory of transfer learning: The importance of task diversity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7852-7862." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Trischler, Tong Wang, Xingdi Yuan, Justin Harris, Alessandro Sordoni, Philip Bachman, and Kaheer Suleman. 2017. NewsQA: A machine comprehension dataset. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 191-200, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 525, + 546 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 525, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 525, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neeraj Varshney, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Investigating selective prediction approaches across several tasks in iid, ood, and adversarial settings. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1995–2002." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cunxiang Wang, Pai Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Can generative pre-trained language models serve as knowledge bases for closed-book qa? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3241-3251." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yufei Wang, Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Huang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, and Daxin Jiang. 2022. Promda: Prompt-based data augmentation for low-resource nlu tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4242-4255." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhao Wang and Aron Culotta. 2021. Robustness to spurious correlations in text classification via automatically generated counterfactuals. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 14024-14031." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1307" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dirk Weissenborn, Georg Wiese, and Laura Seiffe. 2017. Making neural QA as simple as possible but not simpler. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 271-280, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 38-45." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sen Wu, Hongyang R Zhang, and Christopher Ré. 2020. Understanding and improving information transfer in multi-task learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linyi Yang, Jiazheng Li, Pádraig Cunningham, Yue Zhang, Barry Smyth, and Ruihai Dong. 2021. Exploring the efficacy of automatically generated counterfactuals for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 306-316." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 384, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 384, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 384, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linyi Yang, Zhen Wang, Yuxiang Wu, Jie Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Towards fine-grained causal reasoning and qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07408." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 291, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 291, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 291, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Yue, Ziyu Yao, and Huan Sun. 2022. Synthetic question value estimation for domain adaptation of question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1340-1351." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 504, + 142, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 504, + 142, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 504, + 142, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 526, + 202, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 526, + 202, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 526, + 202, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Template Comparison" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As we see in Table 5, changing \"But\" in the template to \"And\" alters the logical relationship between the preceding and following sentences, which had an impact of more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 620, + 202, + 634 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 620, + 202, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 620, + 202, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Template Engineering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The main objective of applying prompt templates is to enhance the model's out-of-domain performance by extracting invariant features between different domain questions. Therefore, the first rule is that a designed template should avoid containing domain-related information. For example, \"This [health] company [Hologic] is mentioned in the question.\" should not be an ideal template because it involves extra domain information that Hologic is a health company." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 520, + 176 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 520, + 176 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 520, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 520, + 176 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6224c7afe454ee5faa74ac45e0858e1cfca9ec2afea3b6c13d4ca1ee7592bfe3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 525, + 210 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 525, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 525, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The word overlap between different datasets considered by the CasualQA task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 225, + 520, + 332 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 225, + 520, + 332 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 225, + 520, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 225, + 520, + 332 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d8f7bb484206752286d47c8a42d189ac919e49a4879ddb6c77f57ceb6da9e0b1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: The word overlap between SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 525, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, a template should be a proper English sentence with correct spelling, no grammar mistakes, and proper semantic meaning. Our experiment shows that one wrong word in a template may cause significant performance variation (see Appendix A.1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Third, since templates are concatenated at the end of the context, templates cannot be too long. If a template has almost the same length as the context or even longer, it will double the amount of input data and thus increase the computational cost of the model; more importantly, it may deprive the leader role of the context, which may make the model too generalized to capture the answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fourth, there are two main varieties of prompt templates: cloze prompt and prefix prompt. (Liu et al., 2021b) Cloze prompt fill in the blanks of a textual string, and the prefix prompt continue a string prefix. Instead of using only one type, we include both variants of templates in the designed four prompt templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to these rules, we design four types of templates, of which each type has different sentence patterns. Template generalization is modulized as a two-step process: 1) generating the prompt words, and 2) filling in the blanks (Liu et al., 2021b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1308" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 286, + 206 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 286, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 286, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 286, + 206 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TemplateF1
BaselineNone70.29
Experiment1"There is no important phrase in this query.\nBut also pay attention to these words: _”69.57
Experiment2"There is no important phrase in this query.\nAnd also pay attention to these words: _”70.84
", + "image_path": "a29f2f7b772712dec8c422502de40c07393a39e8657cfc38bdb91056e1c0d3af.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 190, + 277 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 190, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 190, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Template Designing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 291, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 291, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 291, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sentiment Templates Assume that a person unfamiliar with the restaurant industry tries to answer the question, \"Why the global restaurant sector has come under pressure?\" This person can easily find that this question concerns the factors that adversely affect restaurants even without industry knowledge. Therefore, looking for negative words from the context, like destroyed, restricted etc., may help to locate the correct answer. Based on the intuition above, we implement a sentiment analysis framework * to give each question and each word in the answer sentence a sentiment score. Afterwards, the highest positive or negative scores are selected to be used as the prompt words. Second, the sentient of the question and the prompt words are filled in the blanks of sentiment templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Named Entity Templates Unique entities mentioned in a question could hint at answering the question. Hence, a named entity recognition framework is applied to each question. We intend to recognize five types of entities mentioned in the question: Person, Organization, Location, Country, and Date. Entities not included in the five types are assigned as \"Other\" entities. Step two fills the recognized entities in the blanks as prompt words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 747 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Phrase Template Phrases are usually the question subject, potentially valuable in locating the correct answer. A simple strategy is designed to find out the phrases composed of an adjective(s) and noun(s). For example, \"hybrid environments\", \"software-as-a-service applications\", and \"remote access\" are phrases in a question. These phrases are selected as prompt words and filled in the blanks in step two." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 518, + 111 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 240 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: The effect of using an improper word in a template." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 518, + 111 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 518, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 518, + 111 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsDevTest
F1EMF1EM
SpanBERT-base84.7762.6284.8564.04
SpanBERT-large85.4061.4185.5362.26
", + "image_path": "f36387610865cb887f162bfd4aeb7995a11c260c4946fb753357dad60d713ec4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 156, + 524, + 215 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 145 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Domain-independent QA results of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 156, + 524, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 156, + 524, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 156, + 524, + 215 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DomainConIndTech
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Con85.8460.6484.8056.0185.5455.09
Ind85.7666.6685.8467.2185.3465.57
Tech80.2458.0881.5158.5881.9858.08
", + "image_path": "3daf6999de7f785eb49e5281b04b9fef2f678ff7a2020888d98491997acaae54.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 524, + 235 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 524, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 524, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Out-of-domain test results of SpanBERT-base." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 483, + 271 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 483, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 483, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Word Overlap between Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fig 5 and 6 show the word overlap percentage between different domains of the CausalQA dataset, and also on datasets from different domains, i.e., between the SQuAD, CausalQA and NewsQA datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 357, + 507, + 370 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 357, + 507, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 357, + 507, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Experiment Results on Other Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 375, + 525, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 375, + 525, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 375, + 525, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On both domain-independent QA and cross-domain QA tasks, the SpanBERT model achieves state-of-the-art performance. Table 6 shows the domain-independent QA result of SpanBERT-base and SpanBERT-large model, which also provides evidence that the proposed method works on the large model which can achieve better results than it on the base model. Tab7 shows the result of the Span-BERT OOD test." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 525, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tab 8 shows the cross-domain QA experiment results on T5-base. We show that our method can significantly improve the cross-domain QA performance compared to the standard fine-tuning results based on the CausalQA dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 524, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 524, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 524, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tab 9, 10 and Fig 7 are the ablation study results on RoBERTa and BART models for cross-domain QA task on the CausalQA dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 475, + 632 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 475, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 475, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 Details of experimental results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 637, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 637, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 637, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The experiment is conducted on a GTX 3090 TI with 24GB graphics RAM size. The average training time for each model on the domain-independent QA task is around 2.5 hours, and on the cross-domain QA task is around 30 minutes on CausalQA dataset. On SQuAD and NewsQA dataset, the average training time for each model is around 3 hours. For each experiment setting, we run 10 repeated experiments and report the average results. The model name indicates the base model is no size" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 223, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 223, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 223, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*implemented using the NLTK module" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1309" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 143 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 143 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 143 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Train/TestConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
ConOri59.3015.7456.6918.6056.1317.67
Ours(+2.19)(+3.87)(+1.79)(+0.84)(+2.24)(+1.77)
IndOri59.8524.7261.4124.0359.9425.27
Ours(+2.52)(-0.68)(+0.06)(-3.81)(+1.64)(-4.51)
TechOri55.3017.8554.4116.8358.7620.20
Ours(+3.70)(+5.38)(+4.83)(+5.39)(+0.53)(+2.02)
", + "image_path": "f912288d8413187b77d793b43972af742c0bfc32ed2ffadf97f558b7a2a97833.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 290, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 290, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 290, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Out-of-domain test results of the T5-base model. Numbers in brackets represent the performance improved by our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 198, + 289, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 198, + 289, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 198, + 289, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 198, + 289, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b5a937991c85a82586fa99a17d64963fd96132d98841d8ca688d04f8a726f491.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 291, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 291, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model for cross-domain QA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 382, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 382, + 291, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 382, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "specification, e.g. \"BART+P\" indicates the BART-base model plus the prompting method. We also implemented large models to prove the effectiveness of the proposed models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the hyperparameter tuning, we split the whole dataset into train/Validation/test sets on the domain-independent QA task and use the validation set for hyperparameter tuning. On the cross-domain QA task, we split the dataset of each domain into train/Validation/test sets and use the validation set that comes from the same domain with the training set for hyperparameter tuning. The criterion used to select the hyperparameter is the F1 on the validation set. We first select a series of candidate values of a hyperparameter through uniform sampling from a reasonable range, then select the value that achieves the best F1 on the validation set. Three repeated trials decide the value of a hyperparameter. For example, we give the best-performing RoBERTa-base model configuration on ConsumerTrain/Technology-Test experiment as follows: the learning rate for linear-probing is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10^{-6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the number of epochs for linear probing is 3, the learning rate for fine-tuning is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10^{-5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the training batch size is 4, parameters are updated every 8 batches, and the number of epochs for fine-tuning is 14." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1310" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 109, + 147, + 484, + 292 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 147, + 484, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 147, + 484, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 147, + 484, + 292 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: RoBERTaCon78.2051.3872.4947.6874.6349.07
Ind77.8149.4580.0558.4677.9148.35
Tec75.5455.0573.9948.9876.4954.04
RoBERTa + LP-FTCon75.0947.6873.8246.7575.7250.00
Ind78.8148.9081.01*51.1076.7150.00
Tec79.2356.06*77.5055.0578.2253.53
RoBERTa + PromptCon78.97*53.2477.09*50.00*77.93*51.85*
Ind78.4556.2880.0561.74*80.05*57.92*
Tec77.4654.5478.50*57.58*80.62*58.08*
RoBERTa + LP-FT + PromptCon78.3953.24*75.0748.6177.4649.54
Ind80.55*59.02*80.7060.6679.0057.37
Tec77.93*55.0576.7056.0676.7653.54
", + "image_path": "842fb982a963eea71b6ca6f76796cce96a9735440290b46e6b26f07b33fbdb1a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 116, + 501, + 477, + 645 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 337 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Ablation study results based on the RoBERTa-base model. Also, the results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 501, + 477, + 645 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 501, + 477, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 501, + 477, + 645 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsConsumerIndustrialTechnology
F1EMF1EMF1EM
Baseline: BARTCon70.2924.5368.4424.0768.6123.61
Ind70.1131.3172.5332.4169.5327.77
Tec69.8930.3069.5327.7771.7933.83
BART + LP-FTCon70.81*24.0770.22*24.5368.2623.61
Ind70.6130.7773.3931.8770.9128.57
Tec71.0835.3572.3130.3072.3733.33
BART + PromptCon70.4127.31*69.1023.1569.2023.61
Ind74.42*42.07*76.2737.1673.0034.43
Tec72.2032.3272.5130.373.3235.35*
BART + LP-FT + PromptCon70.6525.0170.1426.85*72.00*28.24*
Ind74.0636.0676.58*39.89*73.37*37.70*
Tec72.67*33.3372.96*31.31*74.02*34.34
", + "image_path": "3179e4dfb972525a9f1abbe92377abf66b509bd2ac89f7d760e83d01a0201c56.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 526, + 692 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 526, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Ablation study results based on the BART-base model for cross-domain QA. The results are averaged by 10 repeated experiments. The statistically significant performance improvements of our proposed method compared to the baseline model are indicated by * based on the T-test (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1311" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 415, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 415, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 415, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The limitation-related discussion can be found in the section \"Limitation\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 208, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 208, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 208, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 404, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 404, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 404, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"Abstract\" and \"Introduction\" sections." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 386, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 386, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 386, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We have not used AI writing assistants when working on this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 524, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We used the Huggingface framework in implementing our model. Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 305, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 320, + 367, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 320, + 367, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 320, + 367, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 341, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 341, + 463, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 341, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 351, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 351, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 356, + 351, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"Ethics Statement\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 377, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 377, + 524, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 377, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 433, + 524, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 433, + 524, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 433, + 524, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The usage of the Huggingface framework in this paper was consistent with their intended use. Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 468, + 524, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 468, + 524, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 468, + 524, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 509, + 524, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 509, + 524, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 509, + 524, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All datasets used in this paper are dominant question-answering datasets created and used by many previous works. Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 544, + 524, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 544, + 524, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 544, + 524, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 573, + 332, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 573, + 332, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 573, + 332, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 593, + 524, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 593, + 524, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 593, + 524, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 663, + 332, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 663, + 332, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 663, + 332, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.1 Datasets\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 522, + 699 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 522, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 522, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1312" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 294, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 294, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 294, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 418, + 102 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 418, + 102 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 418, + 102 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"A.6 Details of experimental results\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 523, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 523, + 136 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 523, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 138, + 523, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 138, + 523, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 138, + 523, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" and \"A.6 Details of experimental results\" sections." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 173, + 523, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 173, + 523, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 173, + 523, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 201, + 365, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 201, + 365, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 201, + 365, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"4.2 Baseline Models\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 223, + 523, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 223, + 523, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 223, + 523, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc, or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 264, + 386, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 264, + 386, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 264, + 386, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"5 Results and Discussion\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 523, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 523, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 286, + 523, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 327, + 381, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 327, + 381, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 327, + 381, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related text can be found in the \"A.3 Template Designing\" section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 522, + 364 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 522, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 522, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 368, + 127, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 368, + 127, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 368, + 127, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 390, + 523, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 390, + 523, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 390, + 523, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 417, + 148, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 417, + 148, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 417, + 148, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 439, + 523, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 439, + 523, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 439, + 523, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 481, + 148, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 481, + 148, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 481, + 148, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 523, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 544, + 148, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 544, + 148, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 544, + 148, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 565, + 519, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 565, + 519, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 565, + 519, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 580, + 148, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 580, + 148, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 580, + 148, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 602, + 523, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 602, + 523, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 602, + 523, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 629, + 148, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 629, + 148, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 629, + 148, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1313" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_content_list.json b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cf89daabb6b212b04d2b99fc1182e9ed15540fb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2442 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 132, + 89, + 867, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhe Yang,Yi Huang\\* and Junlan Feng\\*", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 155, + 668, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "JIUTIAN Team, China Mobile Research Institute", + "bbox": [ + 300, + 173, + 702, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yangzhe,huangyi,fengjunlan}@chinamobile.com", + "bbox": [ + 278, + 189, + 724, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic medical entity and relation extraction is essential for daily electronic medical record (EMR) analysis, and has attracted a lot of academic attention. Tremendous progress has been made in recent years. However, medical terms are difficult to understand, and their relations are more complicated than general ones. Based on this situation, domain knowledge gives better background and contexts for medical terms. Despite the benefits of medical domain knowledge, the utilization way of it for joint entity and relation extraction is inadequate. To foster this line of research, in this work, we propose to leverage the medical knowledge graph for extracting entities and relations for Chinese Medical Texts in a collective way. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph based on medical knowledge graph, which is linked to the entity mentions in the text. In this way, neighbors from the high-order heterogeneous graph can pass the message to each other for better global context representations. Our experiments on real Chinese Medical Texts show that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 285, + 460, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 671, + 258, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Medical text, e.g., electronic medical record (EMR), has been produced at a rapid speed and massive volume every day. Without any structured organization, this enormous volume of medical information is difficult to be read through by humans in a short time (Shang et al., 2021). Due to this situation, many researchers have recently paid great attention to the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical domain (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 701, + 489, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The challenge of joint entity and relation extraction in medical domain is that medical terms are", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 863, + 489, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "usually difficult to understand due to the requirement of medical domain knowledge, especially for abbreviations of medical terms in the medical text. Even worse, relations between medical entities become even more complicated. Therefore, medical domain knowledge that could provide meaningful contexts and backgrounds is essential for the better extraction of medical entities and relations. Despite the advantages of medical domain knowledge, most previous works fail to use medical domain knowledge (Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). They solely rely on the local information in the medical text to extract entities and relations with language model (LM), which is insufficient for incomprehensible medical terms and complicated relations between entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 884, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Some recent works utilize medical knowledge for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) simply align entity representation (node representation) from knowledge graph to local texts and fail to explicitly introduce the complicated relation contexts (edge representation) in the medical knowledge graph to enhance the deep representations of their involved entities. Huang et al. (2020) propose graph edge-conditioned attention network (GEANet) which integrates initial static relation embedding into attention mechanism for entity representation enhancement in medical knowledge graph. Nonetheless, it leaves out relational update during knowledge graph training process. Battaglia et al. (2018) propound graph network (GN) framework to update node and edge features iteratively within a heterogeneous graph. However, the edge representation update is based on the sender and receiver nodes information it links, which will bring about fluctuation since the amount of nodes is far outweighed that of edge types.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 884, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, we propose a method to fix these issues by providing additional relation contexts from", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Corresponding authors", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 904, + 285, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9023", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 9023-9035", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 768, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 959, + 700, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2b8bc4a0dbb93fe13edb665d3f368aa2aab061944c1e0d140a641680a6e16494.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: An example of the high-order heterogeneous graph: the left is original first-order graph searched directly from knowledge graph with $e_i$ and $r_i$ as entity and relation, respectively, and the right is its converted second-order graph where $t_{e_i}$ means the type of entity $e_i$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 147, + 85, + 453, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "medical knowledge graph to enrich the deep representations of entity mentions. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph, e.g., Fig. 1, to provide meaningful global contexts for its linked entity mentions. In Fig. 1, we denote $G_{e}$ as the standard first-order graph with entities as nodes and relations as edges, and represent $G_{r}$ as $G_{e}$ 's converted second-order graph with relations as nodes and entity types as edges. For every relation pair of an entity in $G_{e}$ , e.g., $r_{3}$ and $r_{2}$ , we link an edge, i.e., the entity type $t_{e_1}$ , in $G_{r}$ connecting them. In this way, both message passing of entities via different relations and message propagation of relations via different entity types can be well diffused in the global graph structure. After extracting the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, we fuse the entity and relation representations in the global context obtained from the high-order heterogeneous graph with the local information extracted from the medical text.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 259, + 490, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To summarize, our contributions are:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 596, + 410, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We propose a high-order graph modeling method for knowledge fusion, which treats text related sub-graph as the first-order graph with entities as nodes and its converted graph as the second-order one with relations as nodes. We update the hidden representations of nodes in the two order graphs separately as the entity/relation representations for knowledge graph.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We present a knowledge-enhancement method for medical text encoding, which boosts the entity representation of the first-order graph with the feedback of the second-order relation representation. And it further enhances the encoding of the entity mentions from medical text for joint extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We have performed substantial experiments against existing methods. Our evaluation results on real medical datasets verify that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The rest of this paper is organized as follows.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 2 discusses related work. In Section 3, we introduce the typical algorithms for text and graph representation and present the proposed method for knowledge-enhanced joint extraction. Section 4 shows the evaluation results on two datasets with compared to some other advanced methods. We conclude in Section 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 211, + 665, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are two categories of entity and relation extraction methods: pipeline-based methods and joint extraction methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 240, + 882, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pipeline-based entity and relation extraction methods: These work usually first extract entities as outputs, then extract relations for the returned entities. The drawback of pipeline-based extraction methods is that the errors of entity extraction may be accumulated when extracting relations for the already returned entities. For example, Zhong and Chen (2021) put forward an extra encoder and fuse the entity type information to enhance entity pair representation during the relation extraction task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 288, + 884, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jointly entity and relation extraction methods: Some recent work extracts entity and relation in a collective way to overcome the accumulated error problem in the pipeline-based methods. There are two kinds of standard extraction methods, which are non-knowledge-enhanced and knowledge-enhanced methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most joint entity and relation extraction methods ignore the domain knowledge. Wang et al. (2018) utilize a novel graph scheme to solve the problem. Luan et al. (2018) apply multi-task method to optimize entities, relations, and coreference simultaneously.Bekoulis et al. (2018) further propose multi-context based adversarial training method. Luan et al. (2019) utilize dynamic span graphs to form a general framework. Fu et al. (2019) model text as relational graphs for joint extraction. Zhao et al. (2021) model dense cross-modal interactions for joint extraction. Wang and Lu (2020) apply table-sequence encoders to extract jointly. Lin et al. (2020) apply neural model for information extraction with global features. Recently, Eberts and Ulges (2020) propose a span-based method with transformer pre-training. Further, Ji et al. (2020) apply span-based method with attention-based spanspecific and contextual semantic representations. Moreover, Wei et al. (2020) propose a cascade binary tagging framework for entity and relation extraction. Yan et al. (2021) propose a partition filter", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9024", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "network for joint entity and relation extraction. Despite that these works extract entity and relation in a joint way, they are not designed for medical text. While some previous works are designed for medical text, they ignore the help of medical domain knowledge when modeling (e.g., Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). Only a few works incorporate medical domain knowledge to enhance the contexts of the medical text for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). Among them, Lai et al., 2021 extract entity and relation jointly with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. Verlinden et al. (2021) inject knowledge base information into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously. However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) fail to explicitly incorporate complicated relation contexts for their involved entities. Thus the interaction between entity and relation extraction will not be captured. Our method overcomes this drawback by providing relation contexts when modeling deep representations of entities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most of the current work does not use domain knowledge, or only uses the entity context in domain knowledge, and does not include the relation context. While we explicitly model the entity context and relation context as the important context information for entity span, which improves the results of joint extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 489, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Proposed Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 582, + 302, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fig. 2 shows the framework of our method. It first extracts the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph (Section 3.1), and learns entity and relation representation from the global context (Section 3.2). After that, we learn the representation of entity mentions from the local context in the medical text (Section 3.3). The fusion of entity representations from both global and local contexts and its corresponding relation representation (Section 3.4) is utilized to extract entities and relations in a collective way (Section 3.5).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 489, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 High-order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 426, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The challenge is that there are multiple relations in the heterogeneous graph, and modeling entities together with their contextual relation information is non-trivial. We propose to construct a high-order", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "heterogeneous graph from the knowledge graph for the medical text, such that the text representation contains additional global knowledge contexts of related entities and relations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The high-order heterogeneous graph comprises of first-order graph (a text related sub-graph of original knowledge graph) and its converted second-order graph. Given a piece of medical text expressed as words $t = (w_0, w_1, \\dots, w_i, \\dots, w_k)$ and a domain knowledge graph $G = (V, \\varepsilon, E)$ , the goal of high-order heterogeneous graph extraction is to obtain $G_e = (V_e, E_e)$ and $G_r = (V_r, E_r)$ . Specifically,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 149, + 885, + 293 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nV _ {e} = V \\cap \\left\\{w _ {i} \\right\\},\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 635, + 322, + 757, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left(e _ {i}, r _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}}, e _ {j}\\right) \\in \\varepsilon , \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 341, + 882, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nr _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}} = E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}),\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 623, + 362, + 768, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $v_{e_i}, v_{e_j} \\in V_e, r_{e_i, e_j} \\in E_e$ and $\\varepsilon$ is the set of all triplets $\\{(e_h, r_{e_h, e_t}, e_t)\\}$ in knowledge graph. And", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 882, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nV _ {r} \\subseteq E _ {e},\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 660, + 450, + 731, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nE _ {r} \\subseteq T \\left(V _ {e}\\right), \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 647, + 469, + 880, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbb {I} (E _ {r} (E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}), E _ {e} (e _ {l}, e _ {m}))) = \\mathbb {I} (e _ {i} = e _ {m} \\lor e _ {j} = e _ {l}),\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 488, + 875, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $T(.)$ means the type of an entity. $\\mathbb{I}$ is the indicator function and $\\mathbb{I}(E_r(.))$ measures whether the edge $E_{r}(.)$ in second-order graph exists.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hence, it first searches through the medical knowledge graph to extract all triplets as the first-order graph pertaining to current medical text, and converts it to the second-order graph with nodes and edges switched. To be detailed, we traverse nodes, i.e., entities, in the first-order graph and collect their in and out edges, i.e., relations. Concretely, when it is the head entity in a triplet, we call the corresponding relation the out relation, conversely, the in relation. For any in-out relation pair of an entity, we consider relations as nodes for the second-order graph, and the type of the corresponding entity as the edge linking them. As it can be seen in the High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction Module part of Fig. 2, a Chinese entity \"鹅口疮(thrush)\" is revolved around by relations of \"可能疾病(possible disease)\", \"并发症(complication)\" and \"传染方式(mode of infection)\" in the first-order graph, during which the first two are in relations, and the other is the out relation. For any in-out relation pair, e.g., \"并发症-传染方式\", we take them as two nodes in the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9025", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1e71513ef52fd210430366c556f911b45a4a4ef15bf5b5685f76252f64242e9a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Details of each step are from Section 3.1 to 3.5." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 872, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "converted second-order graph and the type of the entity “鹅口疮”, i.e., “疾病(disease)” as the linking edge. As a counter example, “可能疾病” and “并发症” are all in relations for entity “鹅口疮”, therefore, no edge exists to link them. We merely link the in-out relation pair on account of the message flowing direction, i.e., from head entity to tail entity.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 439, + 487, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This high-order heterogeneous graph we propose is distinguished from the node layer and edge layer in Jiang et al. (2020), which lies in two aspects:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 570, + 487, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) We only consider the in-out relation pairs as edges for second-order graph, which better reflects the direction of information flow, while Jiang et al. (2020) links all relation pairs.", + "(2) The edge in second-order graph represents the entity type in our method, however, it remains as the entity by authors of Jiang et al. (2020), where the number of entities is very huge and will not be feasible for GNN to learn." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 487, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Modeling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 782, + 431, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our idea is to propagate messages among both the first-order graph $G_{e}$ and the converted second-order graph $G_{r}$ in Fig. 2, in order to capture the complex global information from knowledge graph. Hence, entity mentions in the medical text can integrate their local information with the related global", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "contexts for the better encoding.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 749, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first propagate message among the standard first-order graph $G_{e}$ with relational graph convolutional network (RGCN) (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). We apply TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) as the initialization of the embedding for each node $v_{i}$ . The embedding of each node $v_{i}$ , i.e., entity, can be updated as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 458, + 884, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nv _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(\\mathrm {U} ^ {l} v _ {i} ^ {l} + \\sum_ {k \\in R} \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in N _ {i} ^ {k}} \\left(\\frac {1}{\\left| N _ {i} ^ {k} \\right|} \\mathrm {U} _ {k} ^ {l} v _ {j} ^ {l}\\right)\\right), \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 602, + 882, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $v_{i}^{l}$ is the embedding of the node $v_{i}$ at layer $l$ . $N_{i}^{k}$ is the set of neighbors of $v_{i}$ under relation $k$ . $\\mathbf{U}^{l}$ is the trainable parameter at layer $l$ . $\\mathbf{U}_{k}^{l}$ is relation specific weighted parameter.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 882, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further model the global contexts in the converted second-order graph $G_{r}$ . Different from the first-order graph $G_{e}$ , the nodes and edges in second-order graph represent relations and entity types respectively. We pass messages among the neighbors of the node, i.e., relation $r_i$ , via different entity types in graph $G_{r}$ . Then the information among multiple entity types of relation $r_i$ can be summarized. Here the initialization of the embedding for each relation $r_i$ is also obtained by the TransE model. The embedding of each node, i.e., relation $r_i$ , is integrated by the deep representations of its", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9026", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "neighbors as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 216, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nr _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(\\mathrm {O} ^ {l} r _ {i} ^ {l} + \\sum_ {t \\in T} \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in N _ {i} ^ {t}} \\left(\\frac {1}{\\left| N _ {i} ^ {t} \\right|} \\mathrm {O} _ {t} ^ {l} r _ {j} ^ {l}\\right)\\right), \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 105, + 487, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $r_i^l$ is the embedding of the relation $r_i$ at layer $l$ . $N_i^t$ is the set of neighbors of relation $r_i$ under the entity type $t \\in T$ , while $|N_i^t|$ is the number of neighbors of $r_i$ . $\\mathrm{O}^l$ is the trainable parameter at layer $l$ . And ReLU is the activation function.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 154, + 487, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The high-order heterogeneous graph modeling provides deep representations for the entities and relations. Therefore, complicated relation information can be well preserved for the involved entities in the modeling of Section 3.5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 235, + 489, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Spans Representation with Transformer Encoder", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 325, + 475, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After modeling the high-order heterogeneous graph extracted from the medical knowledge graph, we then model the local contexts in the medical text. The medical text is organized here as tokens $t = (x_0, x_1, \\dots, x_i, \\dots, x_{n-1})$ , and a successive sequence $(x_{s_i}, \\dots, x_{e_i})$ in text is a span which means an entity mention for medical text. Each span $s_i$ is modeled as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 362, + 487, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns _ {i} = g _ {s} \\left(\\left[ x _ {s _ {i}}, x _ {e _ {i}}, \\hat {x} _ {i}, \\phi (s _ {i}) \\right]\\right), \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 498, + 487, + 516 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $x_{s_i}$ denotes the token level embedding from the transformer encoder, e.g., BERT, of the start of span $s_i$ , while $x_{e_i}$ represents the token level embedding of the end of span $s_i$ . $\\hat{x}_i$ is an attention-weighted sum of the token representations in the span. And $\\phi(s_i)$ is a feature vector modeling the length of $s_i$ . $g_s$ is a feed-forward neural network (Lee et al., 2017).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 521, + 487, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then a span-based GCN is applied on the graph with spans as nodes and relations between spans as edges:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 651, + 487, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = h _ {i} ^ {l} + f _ {s p a n} ^ {l} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(f _ {s} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right), f _ {s ^ {\\prime}} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right)\\right)\\right), \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 703, + 487, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 732, + 147, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf_{s}^{l}(h_{i}^{l}) = \\sum_{s_{j}\\in s_{set},j\\neq i}\\sum_{k\\in R}r_{ij}[k](W_{k}h_{j}^{l} + b_{k}),\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 750, + 463, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {s ^ {\\prime}} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right) = \\sum_ {s _ {j} \\in s _ {\\text {s e t}}, j \\neq i} \\sum_ {k \\in R} r _ {j i} [ k ] \\left(W _ {k} ^ {\\prime} h _ {j} ^ {l} + b _ {k} ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 789, + 487, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nr _ {i j} [ k ] = S o f t m a x (f _ {r} ([ s _ {i}, s _ {j}, s _ {i} \\circ s _ {j} ])) [ k ],\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 828, + 460, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $h_i^{l+1}$ is the deep representation of $s_i$ at the layer $l+1$ , $f_{span}$ and $f_r$ are feedforward neural networks. $f_s^l$ and $f_{s'}^l$ are bidirectional GCN (Marchegiani and Titov, 2017; Fu et al., 2019) for $h_i^l$ , $r_{ij}[k]$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 853, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "measures the relation score for relation $k$ between spans of $s_i$ and $s_j$ , $\\circ$ denotes the element-wise multiplication. And $h_i^0$ is initialized as $s_i$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Knowledge Graph Enhanced Span Representation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 143, + 828, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After applying span-based GCN, we obtain the hidden representation $h_i$ of span $s_i$ derived from local context, e.g., the medical text. Then we apply an attention mechanism (Lai et al., 2021) to integrate the deep representation of hidden representation $h_i$ of span $s_i$ from the local medical text with the deep representation of entities $v_i$ from the global contexts in the first-order graph as $f_{i_e}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 882, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {i _ {e}} = W _ {i _ {e}} f _ {c _ {e}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {e}}\\right)} W _ {i j _ {e}} f _ {v} \\left(v _ {j}\\right), \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 324, + 882, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $C(s_{i_e})$ is the candidate set of entities corresponding to span $s_i$ in the dual heterogeneous graph. And $f_{c_e}(h_i)$ and $f_v(v_j)$ are the transformed representation of $h_i$ and $v_j$ by two feedforward neural networks. And $W_{i_e}$ and $W_{ij_e}$ are attention scores of the two transformed representations:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 372, + 882, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nW _ {i _ {e}} = \\frac {\\exp (\\alpha_ {i _ {e}})}{(\\exp (\\alpha_ {i _ {e}}) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C (s _ {i})} \\exp (\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}))}, \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 481, + 882, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 531, + 541, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nW _ {i j _ {e}} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\\right)}{\\left(\\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i _ {e}}\\right) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C (s _ {i})} \\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\\right)\\right)}. \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 555, + 882, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here $\\alpha_{ij_e}$ and $\\alpha_{i_e}$ are importance scores of the transformed entity representation $v_j$ and the transformed span representation $h_i$ to the span representation $h_i$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 606, + 882, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}} = f _ {\\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {v} (v _ {j}) ]), \\tag {11}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 600, + 684, + 882, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 715, + 541, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\alpha_ {i _ {e}} = f _ {\\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {c _ {e}} (h _ {i}) ]), \\tag {12}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 600, + 732, + 882, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $f_{\\alpha_e}$ is a feedforward neural network.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 831, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, we fuse the deep representations of relations $r_i$ from the global contexts in the second-order graph $G_r$ with the deep representation $h_i$ of span $s_i$ from the local medical text. Distinguished from first-order graph fusion in equation 8, we argue that the corresponding relations in second-order graph may be irrelevant to the span depending on current medical text, and arouse disproportionate or even noisy aggregating representations for", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9027", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "local context. Therefore, a selective gate mechanism (Li et al., 2020) is utilized to perform this fusion as $f_{i_r}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {i _ {r}} = g _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {r}}\\right)} g _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), \\tag {13}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 145, + 487, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $C(s_{i_r})$ is the candidate set of relations in the second-order heterogeneous graph for the span $s_i$ . To be detailed, $C(s_{i_r})$ is a subset of relations from knowledge graph triplets where $s_i$ holds as head or tail entity. And $f_{c_r}(h_i)$ and $f_r(r_j)$ are the transformed representation of $h_i$ and $r_j$ by two feedforward neural networks. And $g_{i_r}$ and $g_{ij_r}$ are gate scores of the two transformed representations:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 193, + 489, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ng _ {i _ {r}} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {1} \\left[ f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right), h _ {i} \\right] + b _ {1}\\right) + b _ {2}\\right), \\right. \\tag {14}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 337, + 487, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 368, + 147, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ng _ {i j _ {r}} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {1} \\left[ f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), h _ {i} \\right] + b _ {1}\\right) + b _ {2}\\right), \\right. \\tag {15}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 397, + 487, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\sigma$ is the Sigmoid activate function which maps the results into the interval of $(0,1)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 428, + 485, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, the fused representation $f_{i}$ can be modeled as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 460, + 485, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {i} = \\left(W _ {\\text {s u m} _ {e}} f _ {i _ {e}} + W _ {\\text {s u m} _ {r}} f _ {i _ {r}}\\right) | | h _ {i}, \\tag {16}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 507, + 485, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which means an integration of deep representation among entities, relations and the span. $W_{sum_e}$ and $W_{sum_r}$ serve as feedforward neural networks. || means concatenation operation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 487, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Collective Entity and Relation Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 485, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we map the integrated representation $f_{i}$ to the entity type space as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 485, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ne _ {i} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(g _ {e} \\left(f _ {i}\\right)\\right), \\tag {17}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 681, + 487, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $g_{e}$ is a feed-forward neural network to map $f_{i}$ to the entity space.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 712, + 485, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similarly, the relation between span $i$ and $j$ can be mapped to the relation type space as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 744, + 485, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nr _ {i j} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(g _ {r} \\left(f _ {i}, f _ {j}\\right)\\right), \\tag {18}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 196, + 790, + 487, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $g_{r}$ is a feed-forward neural network to map $f_{i}$ and $f_{j}$ to the relation space.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 821, + 485, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The training of collectively extracting entity and relation can be optimized by minimizing the loss function as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 485, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {e} + \\mathcal {L} _ {r}, \\tag {19}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 242, + 903, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathcal{L}_e$ represents the cross-entropy loss of entities, and $\\mathcal{L}_r$ denotes the cross-entropy loss of relations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Different from the pipeline way that optimizes entities and relations in separate steps, our method conducts the optimization in an end-to-end mode. In this way, the errors of extracting entities and relations can be reduced collectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 133, + 882, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 227, + 655, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we evaluate our model with extensive experiments. We first show the experimental setup, which contains datasets, baselines for comparison, and evaluation metrics. Then we evaluate the effectiveness of our model and baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 882, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 346, + 712, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 368, + 636, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our method on several real medical datasets with one medical knowledge graph dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 387, + 882, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chinese Medical Text datasets: We evaluate our model on three Chinese medical text datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 880, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The first medical text dataset is the CHIP2020 dataset1, which contains 17,924 sentences from biomedical Chinese text that captures relations between medical entities (Guan et al., 2020). The dataset includes a pediatric labeled corpus for hundreds of common diseases. The training and testing splits contain 14,339 and 3,585 sentences, respectively.", + "- The next medical dataset is the CHIP-2022 dataset ${}^{2}$ ,which contains 1000 samples and is split into 850/150 for training and testing set, respectively. CHIP2022 aims to extract casual, entailment and conditional relations between entities whose type are not distinguished. In the experiments, we merely trace out the previous two types of relations for joint extraction.", + "- The third medical text dataset is the DiaKG dataset3, which contains sentences from diabetes text that reflects relations between medical entities (Chang et al., 2021). The dataset comes from 41 diabetes guidelines and consensuses from authoritative journals in China. The diabetes text contains 22,050 entities and 6,890 relationships. Finally, the prepossessed training and testing splits contain 1,170 and 239 sentences, respectively." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 453, + 882, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1http://cips-chip.org.cn/2020/eval2", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 866, + 800, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2http://cips-chip.org.cn/2022/eval2", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 879, + 800, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://tianchi.aliyun.com/dataset/taDetail?dataId=88836", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 892, + 803, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9028", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e074976af4f7af89930682ba0f6c5143130bd61546e5418507b62c8862534aa9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelCHIP-2020CHIP-2022DIAKG
EntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverall
PFN (Yan et al., 2021)72.252.762.559.342.050.763.044.553.8
CASREL (Wei et al., 2020)66.149.557.856.539.147.850.431.040.7
SPERT (Eberts and Ulges, 2020)73.550.161.857.838.748.365.529.147.3
KB-graph (Verlinden et al., 2021)73.961.867.965.032.548.869.351.160.2
KECI (Lai et al., 2021)74.361.167.763.432.648.072.655.163.8
KECI_nconv (Li et al., 2017)74.261.768.063.532.448.073.254.163.7
KECI_gea (Huang et al., 2020)75.661.068.361.832.547.273.154.964.0
KECI gn (Battaglia et al., 2018)74.760.567.664.032.448.273.954.564.2
Our Model76.561.869.266.732.549.674.254.464.3
", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 80, + 853, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Evaluation results (%) on CHIP-2020 & CHIP-2022 & DiaKG datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 223, + 200, + 771, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chinese Medical knowledge graph dataset: We extract Chinese medical triplets from the public knowledge graph dataset $^{4}$ , which contains disease-related entities and disease-related triples. After preprocessing, we obtain 215,745 triplets for the medical knowledge graph. These triplets contain 16,735 entities and 13 relations, and the amount of entity types is 9.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 240, + 487, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.2 Baselines for comparison", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 378, + 371, + 393 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare our model with state-of-the-art joint extraction methods, variant versions of knowledge-enhanced baseline included.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 397, + 489, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- PFN (Partition Filter Network) is an advanced joint extraction method that does not utilize a knowledge graph. It segments the encoder into entity extraction and relation extraction parts, and accomplishes NER-specific and relation-specific tasks with shared part separately (Yan et al., 2021).", + "- CASREL (Cascade Binary Tagging Framework for Relational Triple Extraction) is an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph enhancement. It models triplets extraction into head entity extraction as well as relation and tail entity extraction with fused head entity representation. The two parts share the same encoder for a joint extraction task (Wei et al., 2020).", + "- SPERT (Span-based Joint Entity and Relation Extraction with Transformer Pre-training) is also an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph context. It attaches entity labels for spans derived from the text, and traversed span pairs for relation judgement (Eberts and Ulges, 2020).", + "- KB-graph is an advanced joint extraction method, which injects medical knowledge into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously (Verlinden et al., 2021).", + "- KECI (Knowledge-Enhanced Collective Inference) is an advanced joint extraction method, which extracts entity and relation collectively with" + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 445, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "knowledge-enhanced collective inference. It utilizes RGCN algorithm for knowledge graph representation (Lai et al., 2021). Compared with the proposed method, KECI merely models the first-order graph for knowledge fusion.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 240, + 884, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- KECI_nnconv is the variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) in which the NNConv (Gilmer et al., 2017) is utilized instead of RGCN. Different from RGCN, NNConv fuses the initial edge feature for message propagation and further enhances the node representation, which is similar to GEANet.", + "- KECI_gea is one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) that the RGCN part is replaced by GEANet (Huang et al., 2020) which is similar to NNCONV.", + "- KECI_gn is also one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) where the node and edge features are simultaneously derived from the graph net (GN) framework (Battaglia et al., 2018)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 321, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.3 Evaluation metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 719, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate methods by Micro-F1 scores for entity and relation extraction. Also, we use the average Micro-F1 scores of entities and their relations in each medical text as the overall scores for each medical text.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 577, + 882, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.4 Implementation details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 669, + 752, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implement our method with PyTorch and MedBERT-kd Transformer $^{5}$ which is based on the structure of BERT and trained on a mount of Chinese clinic texts. The number of parameters of our model is 135,557,734. We conduct hyperparameter tuning by using a Bayesian optimizer for all the methods on real datasets. The scopes of hyper-parameters are: $\\{16,32\\}$ for batch size, $\\{2e-5,3e-5,4e-5,5e-5\\}$ for lower learning rate, $\\{1e-4,2e-4,5e-4\\}$ for upper learning rate.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 688, + 884, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A coarse-to-fine training process is applied during training process. Firstly, we leave out the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 850, + 882, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4http://www.openkg.cn/dataset/medical", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 418, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{5}$ https://huggingface.co/trueto/medbert-kd-chinese", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 891, + 766, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9029", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/32fee73595c2bb5482164e7fb41f0baba7edbb0c09b60a0eb8d1ecd7e195c926.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The ablation study results w.r.t. overall Micro-F1 scores on CHIP-2020/CHIP2022/DiaKG datasets." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 86, + 408, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f5afe7aed439cc5d074e1cb4f2d8169c6fbb5efd1b3f6a16966397cef32dbf04.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 416, + 86, + 638, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e2fba9cef4ee6ac444b360b37757d640368f6486346f71ca525601df00001f02.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 645, + 86, + 875, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "knowledge graph fusion part and only employ hidden representations of spans from the local context to train a better downstream task-specific BERT structure. After that, global information from knowledge graph representation is added for a precise training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 273, + 487, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate all models with GPUs on the JIUTIAN Platform of China Mobile Research Institute.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 489, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Evaluation results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 302, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the effectiveness of all methods on three real datasets in Table 1, where we show the Micro-F1 values of both entities and relations. We also show the averaged overall Micro-F1 values. From Table 1, we make the following observations:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 487, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) KECI outperforms other joint extraction methods which do not involve medical knowledge graph. For example, KECI has $9.9\\%$ , $0.2\\%$ and $23.1\\%$ improvements compared with CASREL on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that the medical knowledge graph is essential for providing more contexts in joint entity and relation extraction.", + "(2) Our model works better than KECI in overall values. Specifically, our model achieves $1.5\\%$ , $1.6\\%$ and $0.5\\%$ improvements compared with the KECI model on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It verifies that high-order graph context could provide more information for text modeling. Moreover, before adding relation context, as shown in Table 1, the Micro-F1 score of the entity for KECI is $74.3\\%$ on CHIP-2020 dataset, while our method uses relation context and Micro-F1 is increased to $76.5\\%$ . On average, there are $2.2\\%$ , $3.3\\%$ , and $1.6\\%$ improvements on the three datasets respectively after adding relation contexts. It can be seen that the relation context does have a significant effect on improving the entity value.", + "(3) Results in CHIP-2022 show that our model" + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 516, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "has a little poorer performance than that of PFN in overall score, however, we still prevail much in entity result. This is attributed to the fact that the relation types in CHIP-2022 dataset are all logical types, such as casual and entailment relations, which varies considerably from medical knowledge graph.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 273, + 884, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further make detailed evaluation on all the entity types which can be seen in table 2 and 3. Generally, our model achieves a higher F1 score among entity types, especially in the less-train-instance targets, e.g., \"部位(part)\", \"其他治疗(other therapy) \", \"其他(others)\" in CHIP-2020 dataset and \"Amount\", \"Method\", \"Pathogenesis\" in DiaKG dataset, our model performs almost above $4\\%$ better than KECI (Lai et al., 2021). When mentioning CHIP-2022 data, we neglect the entity type results owing to its lack of discrimination between entity types.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 395, + 884, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also make comparisons between proposed high-order heterogeneous graph modeling method and some typical graph neural networks (GNN). We can conclude that the high-order graph modeling for both entity and relation update is more efficient than a single order heterogeneous graph modeling for entity representation, even with the extra relation update. Details are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 599, + 882, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) The proposed model exceeds KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by $1.2\\%$ , $0.9\\%$ , $1.6\\%$ , respectively, in CHIP-2020 dataset.", + "(2) The proposed model surpasses KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by $1.6\\%$ , $2.4\\%$ , $1.4\\%$ , respectively, in CHIP-2022 dataset.", + "(3) The proposed model beats KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by $0.6\\%$ , $0.3\\%$ , $0.1\\%$ , respectively, in DiaKG dataset." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 738, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9030", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c3fe8e31add7d4c6a15deef6ea439ebb4d47a3fd43d33efec74e166b32c28805.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
surgery55.7854.3055.0347.3464.9054.75
inspection65.7561.0363.3058.0772.3164.41
epidemiology60.7658.2259.4652.9273.2661.45
disease70.0484.5276.6079.9580.2480.09
symptom71.7063.1267.1468.0072.7470.29
sociology66.8346.6454.9460.1457.7958.94
medicine61.2775.6867.7266.8475.7871.03
part72.9346.4156.7260.3566.2763.17
prognosis------
other-therapy47.7033.2439.1847.6738.7842.77
others---100.005.8311.02
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 500, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/58a827b03263acb12ff2212c2b851387a47bd52cea14e78ac87aa3b3f945303b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Entity evaluation details (%) on CHIP-2020 dataset. (- means the result is zero.)" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
ADE68.4254.1760.4777.5552.7862.81
Amount20.0017.6518.7526.6723.5325.00
Anatomy79.3192.0085.1882.5192.0087.00
Class87.1360.6971.5586.2760.6971.25
Disease78.2277.4977.8573.4082.6077.73
Drug65.0275.2469.7666.8077.6271.80
Method---36.8450.0042.42
Pathogenesis---22.2225.0023.53
Reason30.0033.3331.58---
Symptom48.1540.6244.0752.1737.5043.63
Test43.3361.9050.9850.0066.6757.14
Test_items59.5460.9460.2353.9968.7560.48
Treatment42.8657.6949.1838.2450.0043.34
Operation------
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 266, + 494, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Entity evaluation details $(\\%)$ on DiaKG dataset. (- means the result is zero.)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 439, + 489, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 492, + 278, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct an ablation study on our model to evaluate the effectiveness of its main modules in Figures 3. Specifically, we compare our model with the following variants w.r.t. the overall score of each medical text, i.e., average Micro-F1 score of entities and relation in each medical text.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 513, + 489, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- MnoKG (Model without Knowledge Graph) ignores knowledge graph for triplets extraction.", + "- MEnt (Model with Entity) merely fuses first-order graph into medical text for joint extraction.", + "- MRel (Model with Relation) merely fuses second-order graph into medical text for extraction.", + "- MnoGNN (Model without GNN update) fuses initial node representations of high-order graph from TransE into text without GNN to update.", + "- MRAtt (Model with Relation Attention fusion) is one variant version of our model, which uses an attention mechanism in Equation 20 to replace Equation 16 for relation fusion:" + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 487, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {i _ {r}} = W _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {r}}\\right)} W _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), \\tag {20}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 843, + 487, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $W_{i_r}$ and $W_{ij_r}$ are similar to 9 and 10, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the Figures, we make the following observations:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 114 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) Our model beats MnoKG on all real datasets. In particular, the performance improvements of our model are $8.9\\%$ , $6.3\\%$ and $5.9\\%$ better compared with MnoKG on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that using medical knowledge graph is important for providing external contexts.", + "(2) Our model outperforms MEnt. For example, the overall improvements are $1.5\\%$ , $1.6\\%$ and $0.5\\%$ compared with MEnt on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It justifies that the second-order graph provides a positive feedback for the first-order representations and further enhance the encoding of entity mentions in medical text.", + "(3) Our model surpasses MRel and the rate is less than that of MEnt. It seems the second-order graph plays a major role in dual heterogeneous graph for joint extraction task.", + "(4) Our model precedes MnoGNN. Specifically, the exceeding values are $1.2\\%$ , $2.5\\%$ and $0.1\\%$ for the datasets. It shows that the GNN update part is vital for a better knowledge graph information fusion.", + "(5) The MEnt model only added the first-order graph, and the MRel only added the second-order graph. It can be seen from the data that the effect of MRel is better than that of MEnt. Second-order graph can improve entity extraction even more effectively, because it acts directly on the entity span.", + "(6) Our model performs better than MRAtt. To be specific, the overall improvement of our model is $0.5\\% / 1.5\\%$ compared with MRAtt on CHIP-2020/CHIP-2022 datasets and the result is comparable to that of MRAtt on DiaKG dataset. It means that the selective gate mechanism can improve the performance for relation fusion." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 884, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 730, + 650, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we study the problem of the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical text. We propose to construct the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, and learn the entity span representations in a knowledge-enhanced which integrates the deep representations from both global and local contexts. The extraction of entities and relations is in a collective way. The experimental results show that our model is more effective than state-of-the-art methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9031", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We inject the medical knowledge graph into local texts for entity span representations enhancement. However, unlike most joint extraction methods, the proposed model is hard to be trained in a parallel way. Therefore, it is time-consuming to obtain a well-trained model. We would like to optimize the architecture of the model in the future.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 487, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moreover, our model is adapted to Chinese medical texts where a token usually means a character (not a word). Hence, there will be errors when aligning the entities from the knowledge graph with mentions from local texts. Word segmentation task will be considered in our future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 222, + 487, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 331, + 285, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work is supported by China Mobile Holistic Artificial Intelligence Major Project Funding (R22105ZS, R22105ZSC01) and National Key R&D Program of China (2021ZD0140408).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 356, + 487, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 447, + 213, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gülcehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charlie Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Manfred Otto Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. ArXiv, abs/1806.01261.", + "Giannis Bekoulis, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2018. Adversarial training for multi-context joint entity and relation extraction. In EMNLP.", + "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26.", + "Dejie Chang, Mosha Chen, Chaozhen Liu, Liping Liu, Dongdong Li, Wei Li, Fei Kong, Bangchang Liu, Xiaobin Luo, Ji Qi, et al. 2021. Diakg: An annotated diabetes dataset for medical knowledge graph construction. In China Conference on Knowledge Graph and Semantic Computing, pages 308-314. Springer.", + "Markus Eberts and Adrian Ulges. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with transformer pre-training. In *ECAI* 2020, pages 2006-2013. IOS Press." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 469, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tsu-Jui Fu, Peng-Hsuan Li, and Wei-Yun Ma. 2019. Graphrel: Modeling text as relational graphs for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1409-1418.", + "Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E. Dahl. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1263-1272.", + "T. Guan, H. Zan, X. Zhou, H. Xu, and K Zhang. 2020. CMeIE: Construction and Evaluation of Chinese Medical Information Extraction Dataset. Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, 9th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part I.", + "Kung-Hsiang Huang, Mu Yang, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. Biomedical event extraction with hierarchical knowledge graphs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1277-1285, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Bin Ji, Jie Yu, Shasha Li, Jun Ma, Qingbo Wu, Yusong Tan, and Huijun Liu. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with attention-based span-specific and contextual semantic representations. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 88-99.", + "Xiaodong Jiang, Ronghang Zhu, Sheng Li, and Pengsheng Ji. 2020. Co-embedding of nodes and edges with graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.", + "Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, ChengXiang Zhai, and Quan Hung Tran. 2021. Joint biomedical entity and relation extraction with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6248-6260, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197.", + "Fei Li, Meishan Zhang, Guohong Fu, and Donghong Ji. 2017. A neural joint model for entity and relation extraction from biomedical text. BMC bioinformatics, 18(1):1-11.", + "Yang Li, Guodong Long, Tao Shen, Tianyi Zhou, Lina Yao, Huan Huo, and Jing Jiang. 2020. Self-attention enhanced selective gate with entity-aware embedding for distantly supervised relation extraction. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8269-8276." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9032", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009.", + "Yi Luan, Luheng He, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018. Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreference for scientific knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3219-3232.", + "Yi Luan, Dave Wadden, Luheng He, Amy Shah, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. A general framework for information extraction using dynamic span graphs. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 3036-3046.", + "Ling Luo, Zhihao Yang, Mingyu Cao, Lei Wang, Yin Zhang, and Hongfei Lin. 2020. A neural network-based joint learning approach for biomedical entity and relation extraction from biomedical literature. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 103:103384.", + "Diego Marcheggiani and Ivan Titov. 2017. Encoding sentences with graph convolutional networks for semantic role labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04826.", + "Yali Pang, Tong Zhou, and Zhichang Zhang. 2021. A joint model for chinese medical entity and relation extraction based on graph convolutional networks. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICNLP), pages 119-124. IEEE.", + "Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In European semantic web conference, pages 593-607. Springer.", + "Yong Shang, Yu Tian, Min Zhou, Tianshu Zhou, Kewei Lyu, Zhixiao Wang, Ran Xin, Tingbo Liang, Shiqiang Zhu, and Jingsong Li. 2021. Ehr-oriented knowledge graph system: Toward efficient utilization of non-used information buried in routine clinical practice. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25(7):2463-2475.", + "Severine Verlinden, Klim Zaporojets, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2021. Injecting knowledge base information into end-to-end joint entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02286.", + "Jue Wang and Wei Lu. 2020. Two are better than one: Joint entity and relation extraction with table-sequence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1706-1721.", + "Shaolei Wang, Yue Zhang, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2018. Joint extraction of entities and relations based on a novel graph scheme. In *IJCAI*, pages 4461-4467. Yokohama." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhepei Wei, Jianlin Su, Yue Wang, Yuan Tian, and Yi Chang. 2020. A novel cascade binary tagging framework for relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1476-1488.", + "Kui Xue, Yangming Zhou, Zhiyuan Ma, Tong Ruan, Huanhuan Zhang, and Ping He. 2019. Fine-tuning bert for joint entity and relation extraction in chinese medical text. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 892-897. IEEE.", + "Zhiheng Yan, Chong Zhang, Jinlan Fu, Qi Zhang, and Zhongyu Wei. 2021. A partition filter network for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 185-197, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shan Zhao, Minghao Hu, Zhiping Cai, and Fang Liu. 2021. Modeling dense cross-modal interactions for joint entity-relation extraction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4032-4038.", + "Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. 2021. A frustratingly easy approach for entity and relation extraction. In North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9033", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the \"Limitations\" section which is next to the section 5", + "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? the \"Limitations\" section which is next to the section 5", + "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the 1st section (introduction) and the \"abstract\" section which is ahead of section 1", + "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 766, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 489, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 215, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response.", + "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response.", + "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response.", + "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response.", + "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response.", + "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 347, + 880, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "section 4 (experiments)", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 307, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 4.1.4 (Implementation details)", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9034", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "section 4.1.4 (Implementation details)", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 117, + 433, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 143, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the results are stable without large error bars", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 192, + 489, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 218, + 882, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "not used", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 267, + 218, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 293, + 877, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 882, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 374, + 248, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 399, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 449, + 248, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 475, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 524, + 248, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 549, + 875, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 567, + 248, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 592, + 880, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No response.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 626, + 248, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9035", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_model.json b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f06cda7c85501d805059119383cee01f0e7b9ed --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3119 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.09, + 0.868, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.334, + 0.156, + 0.669, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhe Yang,Yi Huang\\* and Junlan Feng\\*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.301, + 0.174, + 0.703, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "JIUTIAN Team, China Mobile Research Institute" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.28, + 0.19, + 0.725, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yangzhe,huangyi,fengjunlan}@chinamobile.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.262, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.286, + 0.461, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic medical entity and relation extraction is essential for daily electronic medical record (EMR) analysis, and has attracted a lot of academic attention. Tremendous progress has been made in recent years. However, medical terms are difficult to understand, and their relations are more complicated than general ones. Based on this situation, domain knowledge gives better background and contexts for medical terms. Despite the benefits of medical domain knowledge, the utilization way of it for joint entity and relation extraction is inadequate. To foster this line of research, in this work, we propose to leverage the medical knowledge graph for extracting entities and relations for Chinese Medical Texts in a collective way. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph based on medical knowledge graph, which is linked to the entity mentions in the text. In this way, neighbors from the high-order heterogeneous graph can pass the message to each other for better global context representations. Our experiments on real Chinese Medical Texts show that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.673, + 0.26, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.702, + 0.49, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Medical text, e.g., electronic medical record (EMR), has been produced at a rapid speed and massive volume every day. Without any structured organization, this enormous volume of medical information is difficult to be read through by humans in a short time (Shang et al., 2021). Due to this situation, many researchers have recently paid great attention to the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical domain (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.864, + 0.49, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The challenge of joint entity and relation extraction in medical domain is that medical terms are" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.885, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "usually difficult to understand due to the requirement of medical domain knowledge, especially for abbreviations of medical terms in the medical text. Even worse, relations between medical entities become even more complicated. Therefore, medical domain knowledge that could provide meaningful contexts and backgrounds is essential for the better extraction of medical entities and relations. Despite the advantages of medical domain knowledge, most previous works fail to use medical domain knowledge (Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). They solely rely on the local information in the medical text to extract entities and relations with language model (LM), which is insufficient for incomprehensible medical terms and complicated relations between entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.515, + 0.885, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Some recent works utilize medical knowledge for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) simply align entity representation (node representation) from knowledge graph to local texts and fail to explicitly introduce the complicated relation contexts (edge representation) in the medical knowledge graph to enhance the deep representations of their involved entities. Huang et al. (2020) propose graph edge-conditioned attention network (GEANet) which integrates initial static relation embedding into attention mechanism for entity representation enhancement in medical knowledge graph. Nonetheless, it leaves out relational update during knowledge graph training process. Battaglia et al. (2018) propound graph network (GN) framework to update node and edge features iteratively within a heterogeneous graph. However, the edge representation update is based on the sender and receiver nodes information it links, which will bring about fluctuation since the amount of nodes is far outweighed that of edge types." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, we propose a method to fix these issues by providing additional relation contexts from" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.905, + 0.286, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Corresponding authors" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9023" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.23, + 0.946, + 0.769, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 9023-9035" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.96, + 0.702, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.086, + 0.455, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.148, + 0.49, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An example of the high-order heterogeneous graph: the left is original first-order graph searched directly from knowledge graph with \\( e_i \\) and \\( r_i \\) as entity and relation, respectively, and the right is its converted second-order graph where \\( t_{e_i} \\) means the type of entity \\( e_i \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.26, + 0.492, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "medical knowledge graph to enrich the deep representations of entity mentions. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph, e.g., Fig. 1, to provide meaningful global contexts for its linked entity mentions. In Fig. 1, we denote \\( G_{e} \\) as the standard first-order graph with entities as nodes and relations as edges, and represent \\( G_{r} \\) as \\( G_{e} \\)'s converted second-order graph with relations as nodes and entity types as edges. For every relation pair of an entity in \\( G_{e} \\), e.g., \\( r_{3} \\) and \\( r_{2} \\), we link an edge, i.e., the entity type \\( t_{e_1} \\), in \\( G_{r} \\) connecting them. In this way, both message passing of entities via different relations and message propagation of relations via different entity types can be well diffused in the global graph structure. After extracting the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, we fuse the entity and relation representations in the global context obtained from the high-order heterogeneous graph with the local information extracted from the medical text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.598, + 0.411, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To summarize, our contributions are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a high-order graph modeling method for knowledge fusion, which treats text related sub-graph as the first-order graph with entities as nodes and its converted graph as the second-order one with relations as nodes. We update the hidden representations of nodes in the two order graphs separately as the entity/relation representations for knowledge graph." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We present a knowledge-enhancement method for medical text encoding, which boosts the entity representation of the first-order graph with the feedback of the second-order relation representation. And it further enhances the encoding of the entity mentions from medical text for joint extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We have performed substantial experiments against existing methods. Our evaluation results on real medical datasets verify that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The rest of this paper is organized as follows." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 2 discusses related work. In Section 3, we introduce the typical algorithms for text and graph representation and present the proposed method for knowledge-enhanced joint extraction. Section 4 shows the evaluation results on two datasets with compared to some other advanced methods. We conclude in Section 5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.212, + 0.667, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.241, + 0.884, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are two categories of entity and relation extraction methods: pipeline-based methods and joint extraction methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.29, + 0.885, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pipeline-based entity and relation extraction methods: These work usually first extract entities as outputs, then extract relations for the returned entities. The drawback of pipeline-based extraction methods is that the errors of entity extraction may be accumulated when extracting relations for the already returned entities. For example, Zhong and Chen (2021) put forward an extra encoder and fuse the entity type information to enhance entity pair representation during the relation extraction task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.453, + 0.885, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jointly entity and relation extraction methods: Some recent work extracts entity and relation in a collective way to overcome the accumulated error problem in the pipeline-based methods. There are two kinds of standard extraction methods, which are non-knowledge-enhanced and knowledge-enhanced methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.567, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most joint entity and relation extraction methods ignore the domain knowledge. Wang et al. (2018) utilize a novel graph scheme to solve the problem. Luan et al. (2018) apply multi-task method to optimize entities, relations, and coreference simultaneously.Bekoulis et al. (2018) further propose multi-context based adversarial training method. Luan et al. (2019) utilize dynamic span graphs to form a general framework. Fu et al. (2019) model text as relational graphs for joint extraction. Zhao et al. (2021) model dense cross-modal interactions for joint extraction. Wang and Lu (2020) apply table-sequence encoders to extract jointly. Lin et al. (2020) apply neural model for information extraction with global features. Recently, Eberts and Ulges (2020) propose a span-based method with transformer pre-training. Further, Ji et al. (2020) apply span-based method with attention-based spanspecific and contextual semantic representations. Moreover, Wei et al. (2020) propose a cascade binary tagging framework for entity and relation extraction. Yan et al. (2021) propose a partition filter" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9024" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "network for joint entity and relation extraction. Despite that these works extract entity and relation in a joint way, they are not designed for medical text. While some previous works are designed for medical text, they ignore the help of medical domain knowledge when modeling (e.g., Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). Only a few works incorporate medical domain knowledge to enhance the contexts of the medical text for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). Among them, Lai et al., 2021 extract entity and relation jointly with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. Verlinden et al. (2021) inject knowledge base information into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously. However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) fail to explicitly incorporate complicated relation contexts for their involved entities. Thus the interaction between entity and relation extraction will not be captured. Our method overcomes this drawback by providing relation contexts when modeling deep representations of entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.457, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most of the current work does not use domain knowledge, or only uses the entity context in domain knowledge, and does not include the relation context. While we explicitly model the entity context and relation context as the important context information for entity span, which improves the results of joint extraction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.583, + 0.303, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Proposed Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fig. 2 shows the framework of our method. It first extracts the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph (Section 3.1), and learns entity and relation representation from the global context (Section 3.2). After that, we learn the representation of entity mentions from the local context in the medical text (Section 3.3). The fusion of entity representations from both global and local contexts and its corresponding relation representation (Section 3.4) is utilized to extract entities and relations in a collective way (Section 3.5)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.817, + 0.427, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 High-order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The challenge is that there are multiple relations in the heterogeneous graph, and modeling entities together with their contextual relation information is non-trivial. We propose to construct a high-order" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "heterogeneous graph from the knowledge graph for the medical text, such that the text representation contains additional global knowledge contexts of related entities and relations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.15, + 0.886, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The high-order heterogeneous graph comprises of first-order graph (a text related sub-graph of original knowledge graph) and its converted second-order graph. Given a piece of medical text expressed as words \\( t = (w_0, w_1, \\dots, w_i, \\dots, w_k) \\) and a domain knowledge graph \\( G = (V, \\varepsilon, E) \\), the goal of high-order heterogeneous graph extraction is to obtain \\( G_e = (V_e, E_e) \\) and \\( G_r = (V_r, E_r) \\). Specifically," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.636, + 0.323, + 0.758, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nV _ {e} = V \\cap \\left\\{w _ {i} \\right\\},\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.342, + 0.883, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left(e _ {i}, r _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}}, e _ {j}\\right) \\in \\varepsilon , \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.625, + 0.363, + 0.769, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nr _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}} = E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}),\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.39, + 0.884, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( v_{e_i}, v_{e_j} \\in V_e, r_{e_i, e_j} \\in E_e \\) and \\( \\varepsilon \\) is the set of all triplets \\( \\{(e_h, r_{e_h, e_t}, e_t)\\} \\) in knowledge graph. And" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.662, + 0.451, + 0.732, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nV _ {r} \\subseteq E _ {e},\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.648, + 0.47, + 0.882, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nE _ {r} \\subseteq T \\left(V _ {e}\\right), \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.489, + 0.876, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbb {I} (E _ {r} (E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}), E _ {e} (e _ {l}, e _ {m}))) = \\mathbb {I} (e _ {i} = e _ {m} \\lor e _ {j} = e _ {l}),\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.883, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(T(.)\\) means the type of an entity. \\(\\mathbb{I}\\) is the indicator function and \\(\\mathbb{I}(E_r(.))\\) measures whether the edge \\(E_{r}(.)\\) in second-order graph exists." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.567, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hence, it first searches through the medical knowledge graph to extract all triplets as the first-order graph pertaining to current medical text, and converts it to the second-order graph with nodes and edges switched. To be detailed, we traverse nodes, i.e., entities, in the first-order graph and collect their in and out edges, i.e., relations. Concretely, when it is the head entity in a triplet, we call the corresponding relation the out relation, conversely, the in relation. For any in-out relation pair of an entity, we consider relations as nodes for the second-order graph, and the type of the corresponding entity as the edge linking them. As it can be seen in the High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction Module part of Fig. 2, a Chinese entity \"鹅口疮(thrush)\" is revolved around by relations of \"可能疾病(possible disease)\", \"并发症(complication)\" and \"传染方式(mode of infection)\" in the first-order graph, during which the first two are in relations, and the other is the out relation. For any in-out relation pair, e.g., \"并发症-传染方式\", we take them as two nodes in the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9025" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.873, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.4, + 0.82, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Details of each step are from Section 3.1 to 3.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.44, + 0.489, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "converted second-order graph and the type of the entity “鹅口疮”, i.e., “疾病(disease)” as the linking edge. As a counter example, “可能疾病” and “并发症” are all in relations for entity “鹅口疮”, therefore, no edge exists to link them. We merely link the in-out relation pair on account of the message flowing direction, i.e., from head entity to tail entity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.571, + 0.489, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This high-order heterogeneous graph we propose is distinguished from the node layer and edge layer in Jiang et al. (2020), which lies in two aspects:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.621, + 0.489, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) We only consider the in-out relation pairs as edges for second-order graph, which better reflects the direction of information flow, while Jiang et al. (2020) links all relation pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.687, + 0.489, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) The edge in second-order graph represents the entity type in our method, however, it remains as the entity by authors of Jiang et al. (2020), where the number of entities is very huge and will not be feasible for GNN to learn." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.621, + 0.489, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.783, + 0.433, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Modeling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our idea is to propagate messages among both the first-order graph \\( G_{e} \\) and the converted second-order graph \\( G_{r} \\) in Fig. 2, in order to capture the complex global information from knowledge graph. Hence, entity mentions in the medical text can integrate their local information with the related global" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.44, + 0.75, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "contexts for the better encoding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.459, + 0.885, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first propagate message among the standard first-order graph \\( G_{e} \\) with relational graph convolutional network (RGCN) (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). We apply TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) as the initialization of the embedding for each node \\( v_{i} \\). The embedding of each node \\( v_{i} \\), i.e., entity, can be updated as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.604, + 0.884, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nv _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(\\mathrm {U} ^ {l} v _ {i} ^ {l} + \\sum_ {k \\in R} \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in N _ {i} ^ {k}} \\left(\\frac {1}{\\left| N _ {i} ^ {k} \\right|} \\mathrm {U} _ {k} ^ {l} v _ {j} ^ {l}\\right)\\right), \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.883, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( v_{i}^{l} \\) is the embedding of the node \\( v_{i} \\) at layer \\( l \\). \\( N_{i}^{k} \\) is the set of neighbors of \\( v_{i} \\) under relation \\( k \\). \\( \\mathbf{U}^{l} \\) is the trainable parameter at layer \\( l \\). \\( \\mathbf{U}_{k}^{l} \\) is relation specific weighted parameter." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further model the global contexts in the converted second-order graph \\( G_{r} \\). Different from the first-order graph \\( G_{e} \\), the nodes and edges in second-order graph represent relations and entity types respectively. We pass messages among the neighbors of the node, i.e., relation \\( r_i \\), via different entity types in graph \\( G_{r} \\). Then the information among multiple entity types of relation \\( r_i \\) can be summarized. Here the initialization of the embedding for each relation \\( r_i \\) is also obtained by the TransE model. The embedding of each node, i.e., relation \\( r_i \\), is integrated by the deep representations of its" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9026" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.218, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "neighbors as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.106, + 0.489, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nr _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(\\mathrm {O} ^ {l} r _ {i} ^ {l} + \\sum_ {t \\in T} \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in N _ {i} ^ {t}} \\left(\\frac {1}{\\left| N _ {i} ^ {t} \\right|} \\mathrm {O} _ {t} ^ {l} r _ {j} ^ {l}\\right)\\right), \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.155, + 0.489, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( r_i^l \\) is the embedding of the relation \\( r_i \\) at layer \\( l \\). \\( N_i^t \\) is the set of neighbors of relation \\( r_i \\) under the entity type \\( t \\in T \\), while \\( |N_i^t| \\) is the number of neighbors of \\( r_i \\). \\( \\mathrm{O}^l \\) is the trainable parameter at layer \\( l \\). And ReLU is the activation function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.236, + 0.49, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The high-order heterogeneous graph modeling provides deep representations for the entities and relations. Therefore, complicated relation information can be well preserved for the involved entities in the modeling of Section 3.5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.326, + 0.476, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Spans Representation with Transformer Encoder" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.363, + 0.489, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After modeling the high-order heterogeneous graph extracted from the medical knowledge graph, we then model the local contexts in the medical text. The medical text is organized here as tokens \\( t = (x_0, x_1, \\dots, x_i, \\dots, x_{n-1}) \\), and a successive sequence \\( (x_{s_i}, \\dots, x_{e_i}) \\) in text is a span which means an entity mention for medical text. Each span \\( s_i \\) is modeled as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.499, + 0.488, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns _ {i} = g _ {s} \\left(\\left[ x _ {s _ {i}}, x _ {e _ {i}}, \\hat {x} _ {i}, \\phi (s _ {i}) \\right]\\right), \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.523, + 0.489, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(x_{s_i}\\) denotes the token level embedding from the transformer encoder, e.g., BERT, of the start of span \\(s_i\\), while \\(x_{e_i}\\) represents the token level embedding of the end of span \\(s_i\\). \\(\\hat{x}_i\\) is an attention-weighted sum of the token representations in the span. And \\(\\phi(s_i)\\) is a feature vector modeling the length of \\(s_i\\). \\(g_s\\) is a feed-forward neural network (Lee et al., 2017)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.652, + 0.489, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then a span-based GCN is applied on the graph with spans as nodes and relations between spans as edges:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.705, + 0.488, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = h _ {i} ^ {l} + f _ {s p a n} ^ {l} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(f _ {s} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right), f _ {s ^ {\\prime}} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right)\\right)\\right), \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.733, + 0.148, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.751, + 0.465, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf_{s}^{l}(h_{i}^{l}) = \\sum_{s_{j}\\in s_{set},j\\neq i}\\sum_{k\\in R}r_{ij}[k](W_{k}h_{j}^{l} + b_{k}),\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.79, + 0.488, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {s ^ {\\prime}} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right) = \\sum_ {s _ {j} \\in s _ {\\text {s e t}}, j \\neq i} \\sum_ {k \\in R} r _ {j i} [ k ] \\left(W _ {k} ^ {\\prime} h _ {j} ^ {l} + b _ {k} ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.829, + 0.462, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nr _ {i j} [ k ] = S o f t m a x (f _ {r} ([ s _ {i}, s _ {j}, s _ {i} \\circ s _ {j} ])) [ k ],\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.854, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( h_i^{l+1} \\) is the deep representation of \\( s_i \\) at the layer \\( l+1 \\), \\( f_{span} \\) and \\( f_r \\) are feedforward neural networks. \\( f_s^l \\) and \\( f_{s'}^l \\) are bidirectional GCN (Marchegiani and Titov, 2017; Fu et al., 2019) for \\( h_i^l \\), \\( r_{ij}[k] \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "measures the relation score for relation \\(k\\) between spans of \\(s_i\\) and \\(s_j\\), \\(\\circ\\) denotes the element-wise multiplication. And \\(h_i^0\\) is initialized as \\(s_i\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.145, + 0.829, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Knowledge Graph Enhanced Span Representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.183, + 0.884, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After applying span-based GCN, we obtain the hidden representation \\( h_i \\) of span \\( s_i \\) derived from local context, e.g., the medical text. Then we apply an attention mechanism (Lai et al., 2021) to integrate the deep representation of hidden representation \\( h_i \\) of span \\( s_i \\) from the local medical text with the deep representation of entities \\( v_i \\) from the global contexts in the first-order graph as \\( f_{i_e} \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.325, + 0.884, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {i _ {e}} = W _ {i _ {e}} f _ {c _ {e}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {e}}\\right)} W _ {i j _ {e}} f _ {v} \\left(v _ {j}\\right), \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.373, + 0.884, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( C(s_{i_e}) \\) is the candidate set of entities corresponding to span \\( s_i \\) in the dual heterogeneous graph. And \\( f_{c_e}(h_i) \\) and \\( f_v(v_j) \\) are the transformed representation of \\( h_i \\) and \\( v_j \\) by two feedforward neural networks. And \\( W_{i_e} \\) and \\( W_{ij_e} \\) are attention scores of the two transformed representations:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.482, + 0.884, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nW _ {i _ {e}} = \\frac {\\exp (\\alpha_ {i _ {e}})}{(\\exp (\\alpha_ {i _ {e}}) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C (s _ {i})} \\exp (\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}))}, \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.532, + 0.542, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.556, + 0.883, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nW _ {i j _ {e}} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\\right)}{\\left(\\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i _ {e}}\\right) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C (s _ {i})} \\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\\right)\\right)}. \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.607, + 0.884, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here \\(\\alpha_{ij_e}\\) and \\(\\alpha_{i_e}\\) are importance scores of the transformed entity representation \\(v_j\\) and the transformed span representation \\(h_i\\) to the span representation \\(h_i\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.6, + 0.685, + 0.883, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}} = f _ {\\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {v} (v _ {j}) ]), \\tag {11}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.716, + 0.542, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.6, + 0.733, + 0.883, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\alpha_ {i _ {e}} = f _ {\\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {c _ {e}} (h _ {i}) ]), \\tag {12}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.832, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(f_{\\alpha_e}\\) is a feedforward neural network." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, we fuse the deep representations of relations \\( r_i \\) from the global contexts in the second-order graph \\( G_r \\) with the deep representation \\( h_i \\) of span \\( s_i \\) from the local medical text. Distinguished from first-order graph fusion in equation 8, we argue that the corresponding relations in second-order graph may be irrelevant to the span depending on current medical text, and arouse disproportionate or even noisy aggregating representations for" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9027" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "local context. Therefore, a selective gate mechanism (Li et al., 2020) is utilized to perform this fusion as \\( f_{i_r} \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.146, + 0.488, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {i _ {r}} = g _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {r}}\\right)} g _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), \\tag {13}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.195, + 0.49, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( C(s_{i_r}) \\) is the candidate set of relations in the second-order heterogeneous graph for the span \\( s_i \\). To be detailed, \\( C(s_{i_r}) \\) is a subset of relations from knowledge graph triplets where \\( s_i \\) holds as head or tail entity. And \\( f_{c_r}(h_i) \\) and \\( f_r(r_j) \\) are the transformed representation of \\( h_i \\) and \\( r_j \\) by two feedforward neural networks. And \\( g_{i_r} \\) and \\( g_{ij_r} \\) are gate scores of the two transformed representations:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.338, + 0.488, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ng _ {i _ {r}} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {1} \\left[ f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right), h _ {i} \\right] + b _ {1}\\right) + b _ {2}\\right), \\right. \\tag {14}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.369, + 0.149, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.398, + 0.488, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ng _ {i j _ {r}} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {1} \\left[ f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), h _ {i} \\right] + b _ {1}\\right) + b _ {2}\\right), \\right. \\tag {15}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.429, + 0.487, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\sigma\\) is the Sigmoid activate function which maps the results into the interval of \\((0,1)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.461, + 0.487, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, the fused representation \\( f_{i} \\) can be modeled as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.508, + 0.487, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {i} = \\left(W _ {\\text {s u m} _ {e}} f _ {i _ {e}} + W _ {\\text {s u m} _ {r}} f _ {i _ {r}}\\right) | | h _ {i}, \\tag {16}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.538, + 0.488, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which means an integration of deep representation among entities, relations and the span. \\( W_{sum_e} \\) and \\( W_{sum_r} \\) serve as feedforward neural networks. || means concatenation operation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.614, + 0.486, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Collective Entity and Relation Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.636, + 0.487, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we map the integrated representation \\( f_{i} \\) to the entity type space as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.214, + 0.682, + 0.488, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ne _ {i} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(g _ {e} \\left(f _ {i}\\right)\\right), \\tag {17}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.713, + 0.487, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( g_{e} \\) is a feed-forward neural network to map \\( f_{i} \\) to the entity space." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.745, + 0.487, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similarly, the relation between span \\(i\\) and \\(j\\) can be mapped to the relation type space as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.197, + 0.791, + 0.488, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nr _ {i j} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(g _ {r} \\left(f _ {i}, f _ {j}\\right)\\right), \\tag {18}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.822, + 0.487, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( g_{r} \\) is a feed-forward neural network to map \\( f_{i} \\) and \\( f_{j} \\) to the relation space." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.487, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The training of collectively extracting entity and relation can be optimized by minimizing the loss function as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.243, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {e} + \\mathcal {L} _ {r}, \\tag {19}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathcal{L}_e\\) represents the cross-entropy loss of entities, and \\(\\mathcal{L}_r\\) denotes the cross-entropy loss of relations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.134, + 0.884, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Different from the pipeline way that optimizes entities and relations in separate steps, our method conducts the optimization in an end-to-end mode. In this way, the errors of extracting entities and relations can be reduced collectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.228, + 0.656, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.884, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we evaluate our model with extensive experiments. We first show the experimental setup, which contains datasets, baselines for comparison, and evaluation metrics. Then we evaluate the effectiveness of our model and baselines." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.347, + 0.714, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.369, + 0.637, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.388, + 0.884, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our method on several real medical datasets with one medical knowledge graph dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.422, + 0.882, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chinese Medical Text datasets: We evaluate our model on three Chinese medical text datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.454, + 0.884, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The first medical text dataset is the CHIP2020 dataset1, which contains 17,924 sentences from biomedical Chinese text that captures relations between medical entities (Guan et al., 2020). The dataset includes a pediatric labeled corpus for hundreds of common diseases. The training and testing splits contain 14,339 and 3,585 sentences, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.584, + 0.882, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The next medical dataset is the CHIP-2022 dataset \\( {}^{2} \\) ,which contains 1000 samples and is split into 850/150 for training and testing set, respectively. CHIP2022 aims to extract casual, entailment and conditional relations between entities whose type are not distinguished. In the experiments, we merely trace out the previous two types of relations for joint extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.713, + 0.884, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The third medical text dataset is the DiaKG dataset3, which contains sentences from diabetes text that reflects relations between medical entities (Chang et al., 2021). The dataset comes from 41 diabetes guidelines and consensuses from authoritative journals in China. The diabetes text contains 22,050 entities and 6,890 relationships. Finally, the prepossessed training and testing splits contain 1,170 and 239 sentences, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.867, + 0.8, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1http://cips-chip.org.cn/2020/eval2" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.881, + 0.8, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2http://cips-chip.org.cn/2022/eval2" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.894, + 0.805, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://tianchi.aliyun.com/dataset/taDetail?dataId=88836" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.454, + 0.884, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9028" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.082, + 0.855, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelCHIP-2020CHIP-2022DIAKG
EntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverall
PFN (Yan et al., 2021)72.252.762.559.342.050.763.044.553.8
CASREL (Wei et al., 2020)66.149.557.856.539.147.850.431.040.7
SPERT (Eberts and Ulges, 2020)73.550.161.857.838.748.365.529.147.3
KB-graph (Verlinden et al., 2021)73.961.867.965.032.548.869.351.160.2
KECI (Lai et al., 2021)74.361.167.763.432.648.072.655.163.8
KECI_nconv (Li et al., 2017)74.261.768.063.532.448.073.254.163.7
KECI_gea (Huang et al., 2020)75.661.068.361.832.547.273.154.964.0
KECI gn (Battaglia et al., 2018)74.760.567.664.032.448.273.954.564.2
Our Model76.561.869.266.732.549.674.254.464.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.224, + 0.201, + 0.772, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Evaluation results (%) on CHIP-2020 & CHIP-2022 & DiaKG datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.241, + 0.489, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chinese Medical knowledge graph dataset: We extract Chinese medical triplets from the public knowledge graph dataset \\(^{4}\\), which contains disease-related entities and disease-related triples. After preprocessing, we obtain 215,745 triplets for the medical knowledge graph. These triplets contain 16,735 entities and 13 relations, and the amount of entity types is 9." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.379, + 0.373, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.2 Baselines for comparison" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.398, + 0.49, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare our model with state-of-the-art joint extraction methods, variant versions of knowledge-enhanced baseline included." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.446, + 0.489, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- PFN (Partition Filter Network) is an advanced joint extraction method that does not utilize a knowledge graph. It segments the encoder into entity extraction and relation extraction parts, and accomplishes NER-specific and relation-specific tasks with shared part separately (Yan et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- CASREL (Cascade Binary Tagging Framework for Relational Triple Extraction) is an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph enhancement. It models triplets extraction into head entity extraction as well as relation and tail entity extraction with fused head entity representation. The two parts share the same encoder for a joint extraction task (Wei et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.671, + 0.49, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SPERT (Span-based Joint Entity and Relation Extraction with Transformer Pre-training) is also an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph context. It attaches entity labels for spans derived from the text, and traversed span pairs for relation judgement (Eberts and Ulges, 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.785, + 0.49, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- KB-graph is an advanced joint extraction method, which injects medical knowledge into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously (Verlinden et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.849, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- KECI (Knowledge-Enhanced Collective Inference) is an advanced joint extraction method, which extracts entity and relation collectively with" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.446, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.241, + 0.885, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "knowledge-enhanced collective inference. It utilizes RGCN algorithm for knowledge graph representation (Lai et al., 2021). Compared with the proposed method, KECI merely models the first-order graph for knowledge fusion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.322, + 0.884, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- KECI_nnconv is the variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) in which the NNConv (Gilmer et al., 2017) is utilized instead of RGCN. Different from RGCN, NNConv fuses the initial edge feature for message propagation and further enhances the node representation, which is similar to GEANet." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.42, + 0.883, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- KECI_gea is one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) that the RGCN part is replaced by GEANet (Huang et al., 2020) which is similar to NNCONV." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.484, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- KECI_gn is also one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) where the node and edge features are simultaneously derived from the graph net (GN) framework (Battaglia et al., 2018)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.322, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.56, + 0.72, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.3 Evaluation metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.579, + 0.884, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate methods by Micro-F1 scores for entity and relation extraction. Also, we use the average Micro-F1 scores of entities and their relations in each medical text as the overall scores for each medical text." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.67, + 0.753, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.4 Implementation details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.689, + 0.885, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implement our method with PyTorch and MedBERT-kd Transformer \\(^{5}\\) which is based on the structure of BERT and trained on a mount of Chinese clinic texts. The number of parameters of our model is 135,557,734. We conduct hyperparameter tuning by using a Bayesian optimizer for all the methods on real datasets. The scopes of hyper-parameters are: \\(\\{16,32\\}\\) for batch size, \\(\\{2e-5,3e-5,4e-5,5e-5\\}\\) for lower learning rate, \\(\\{1e-4,2e-4,5e-4\\}\\) for upper learning rate." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.851, + 0.884, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A coarse-to-fine training process is applied during training process. Firstly, we leave out the" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.419, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4http://www.openkg.cn/dataset/medical" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.892, + 0.768, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{5}\\)https://huggingface.co/trueto/medbert-kd-chinese" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9029" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.087, + 0.41, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.417, + 0.087, + 0.639, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.647, + 0.087, + 0.877, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.234, + 0.868, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The ablation study results w.r.t. overall Micro-F1 scores on CHIP-2020/CHIP2022/DiaKG datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.274, + 0.489, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "knowledge graph fusion part and only employ hidden representations of spans from the local context to train a better downstream task-specific BERT structure. After that, global information from knowledge graph representation is added for a precise training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.371, + 0.49, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate all models with GPUs on the JIUTIAN Platform of China Mobile Research Institute." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.415, + 0.304, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Evaluation results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.436, + 0.489, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the effectiveness of all methods on three real datasets in Table 1, where we show the Micro-F1 values of both entities and relations. We also show the averaged overall Micro-F1 values. From Table 1, we make the following observations:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.517, + 0.489, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) KECI outperforms other joint extraction methods which do not involve medical knowledge graph. For example, KECI has \\(9.9\\%\\), \\(0.2\\%\\) and \\(23.1\\%\\) improvements compared with CASREL on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that the medical knowledge graph is essential for providing more contexts in joint entity and relation extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) Our model works better than KECI in overall values. Specifically, our model achieves \\(1.5\\%\\), \\(1.6\\%\\) and \\(0.5\\%\\) improvements compared with the KECI model on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It verifies that high-order graph context could provide more information for text modeling. Moreover, before adding relation context, as shown in Table 1, the Micro-F1 score of the entity for KECI is \\(74.3\\%\\) on CHIP-2020 dataset, while our method uses relation context and Micro-F1 is increased to \\(76.5\\%\\). On average, there are \\(2.2\\%\\), \\(3.3\\%\\), and \\(1.6\\%\\) improvements on the three datasets respectively after adding relation contexts. It can be seen that the relation context does have a significant effect on improving the entity value." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) Results in CHIP-2022 show that our model" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.517, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.274, + 0.885, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "has a little poorer performance than that of PFN in overall score, however, we still prevail much in entity result. This is attributed to the fact that the relation types in CHIP-2022 dataset are all logical types, such as casual and entailment relations, which varies considerably from medical knowledge graph." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.397, + 0.885, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further make detailed evaluation on all the entity types which can be seen in table 2 and 3. Generally, our model achieves a higher F1 score among entity types, especially in the less-train-instance targets, e.g., \"部位(part)\", \"其他治疗(other therapy) \", \"其他(others)\" in CHIP-2020 dataset and \"Amount\", \"Method\", \"Pathogenesis\" in DiaKG dataset, our model performs almost above \\(4\\%\\) better than KECI (Lai et al., 2021). When mentioning CHIP-2022 data, we neglect the entity type results owing to its lack of discrimination between entity types." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.6, + 0.884, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also make comparisons between proposed high-order heterogeneous graph modeling method and some typical graph neural networks (GNN). We can conclude that the high-order graph modeling for both entity and relation update is more efficient than a single order heterogeneous graph modeling for entity representation, even with the extra relation update. Details are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.739, + 0.884, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) The proposed model exceeds KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by \\(1.2\\%\\), \\(0.9\\%\\), \\(1.6\\%\\), respectively, in CHIP-2020 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.797, + 0.883, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) The proposed model surpasses KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by \\(1.6\\%\\), \\(2.4\\%\\), \\(1.4\\%\\), respectively, in CHIP-2022 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) The proposed model beats KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by \\(0.6\\%\\), \\(0.3\\%\\), \\(0.1\\%\\), respectively, in DiaKG dataset." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.739, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9030" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.082, + 0.501, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
surgery55.7854.3055.0347.3464.9054.75
inspection65.7561.0363.3058.0772.3164.41
epidemiology60.7658.2259.4652.9273.2661.45
disease70.0484.5276.6079.9580.2480.09
symptom71.7063.1267.1468.0072.7470.29
sociology66.8346.6454.9460.1457.7958.94
medicine61.2775.6867.7266.8475.7871.03
part72.9346.4156.7260.3566.2763.17
prognosis------
other-therapy47.7033.2439.1847.6738.7842.77
others---100.005.8311.02
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.226, + 0.489, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Entity evaluation details (%) on CHIP-2020 dataset. (- means the result is zero.)" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.267, + 0.495, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
ADE68.4254.1760.4777.5552.7862.81
Amount20.0017.6518.7526.6723.5325.00
Anatomy79.3192.0085.1882.5192.0087.00
Class87.1360.6971.5586.2760.6971.25
Disease78.2277.4977.8573.4082.6077.73
Drug65.0275.2469.7666.8077.6271.80
Method---36.8450.0042.42
Pathogenesis---22.2225.0023.53
Reason30.0033.3331.58---
Symptom48.1540.6244.0752.1737.5043.63
Test43.3361.9050.9850.0066.6757.14
Test_items59.5460.9460.2353.9968.7560.48
Treatment42.8657.6949.1838.2450.0043.34
Operation------
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.441, + 0.49, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Entity evaluation details \\((\\%)\\) on DiaKG dataset. (- means the result is zero.)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.493, + 0.28, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.514, + 0.49, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct an ablation study on our model to evaluate the effectiveness of its main modules in Figures 3. Specifically, we compare our model with the following variants w.r.t. the overall score of each medical text, i.e., average Micro-F1 score of entities and relation in each medical text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.61, + 0.488, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- MnoKG (Model without Knowledge Graph) ignores knowledge graph for triplets extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.643, + 0.488, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- MEnt (Model with Entity) merely fuses first-order graph into medical text for joint extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.675, + 0.489, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- MRel (Model with Relation) merely fuses second-order graph into medical text for extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.723, + 0.488, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- MnoGNN (Model without GNN update) fuses initial node representations of high-order graph from TransE into text without GNN to update." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.771, + 0.489, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- MRAtt (Model with Relation Attention fusion) is one variant version of our model, which uses an attention mechanism in Equation 20 to replace Equation 16 for relation fusion:" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.61, + 0.489, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.844, + 0.488, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {i _ {r}} = W _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {r}}\\right)} W _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), \\tag {20}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(W_{i_r}\\) and \\(W_{ij_r}\\) are similar to 9 and 10, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.115 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the Figures, we make the following observations:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.884, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) Our model beats MnoKG on all real datasets. In particular, the performance improvements of our model are \\(8.9\\%\\), \\(6.3\\%\\) and \\(5.9\\%\\) better compared with MnoKG on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that using medical knowledge graph is important for providing external contexts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.232, + 0.885, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) Our model outperforms MEnt. For example, the overall improvements are \\(1.5\\%\\), \\(1.6\\%\\) and \\(0.5\\%\\) compared with MEnt on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It justifies that the second-order graph provides a positive feedback for the first-order representations and further enhance the encoding of entity mentions in medical text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.361, + 0.884, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) Our model surpasses MRel and the rate is less than that of MEnt. It seems the second-order graph plays a major role in dual heterogeneous graph for joint extraction task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.426, + 0.884, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(4) Our model precedes MnoGNN. Specifically, the exceeding values are \\(1.2\\%\\), \\(2.5\\%\\) and \\(0.1\\%\\) for the datasets. It shows that the GNN update part is vital for a better knowledge graph information fusion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.508, + 0.885, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(5) The MEnt model only added the first-order graph, and the MRel only added the second-order graph. It can be seen from the data that the effect of MRel is better than that of MEnt. Second-order graph can improve entity extraction even more effectively, because it acts directly on the entity span." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.605, + 0.884, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(6) Our model performs better than MRAtt. To be specific, the overall improvement of our model is \\(0.5\\% / 1.5\\%\\) compared with MRAtt on CHIP-2020/CHIP-2022 datasets and the result is comparable to that of MRAtt on DiaKG dataset. It means that the selective gate mechanism can improve the performance for relation fusion." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.885, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.731, + 0.651, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we study the problem of the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical text. We propose to construct the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, and learn the entity span representations in a knowledge-enhanced which integrates the deep representations from both global and local contexts. The extraction of entities and relations is in a collective way. The experimental results show that our model is more effective than state-of-the-art methods." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9031" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.488, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We inject the medical knowledge graph into local texts for entity span representations enhancement. However, unlike most joint extraction methods, the proposed model is hard to be trained in a parallel way. Therefore, it is time-consuming to obtain a well-trained model. We would like to optimize the architecture of the model in the future." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.223, + 0.488, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moreover, our model is adapted to Chinese medical texts where a token usually means a character (not a word). Hence, there will be errors when aligning the entities from the knowledge graph with mentions from local texts. Word segmentation task will be considered in our future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.332, + 0.287, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.357, + 0.489, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work is supported by China Mobile Holistic Artificial Intelligence Major Project Funding (R22105ZS, R22105ZSC01) and National Key R&D Program of China (2021ZD0140408)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.448, + 0.214, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.47, + 0.49, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gülcehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charlie Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Manfred Otto Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. ArXiv, abs/1806.01261." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.638, + 0.489, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Giannis Bekoulis, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2018. Adversarial training for multi-context joint entity and relation extraction. In EMNLP." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.701, + 0.49, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.489, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dejie Chang, Mosha Chen, Chaozhen Liu, Liping Liu, Dongdong Li, Wei Li, Fei Kong, Bangchang Liu, Xiaobin Luo, Ji Qi, et al. 2021. Diakg: An annotated diabetes dataset for medical knowledge graph construction. In China Conference on Knowledge Graph and Semantic Computing, pages 308-314. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Markus Eberts and Adrian Ulges. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with transformer pre-training. In *ECAI* 2020, pages 2006-2013. IOS Press." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.47, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tsu-Jui Fu, Peng-Hsuan Li, and Wei-Yun Ma. 2019. Graphrel: Modeling text as relational graphs for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1409-1418." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.161, + 0.885, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E. Dahl. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1263-1272." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.236, + 0.885, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "T. Guan, H. Zan, X. Zhou, H. Xu, and K Zhang. 2020. CMeIE: Construction and Evaluation of Chinese Medical Information Extraction Dataset. Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, 9th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part I." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.337, + 0.885, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kung-Hsiang Huang, Mu Yang, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. Biomedical event extraction with hierarchical knowledge graphs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1277-1285, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.425, + 0.883, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bin Ji, Jie Yu, Shasha Li, Jun Ma, Qingbo Wu, Yusong Tan, and Huijun Liu. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with attention-based span-specific and contextual semantic representations. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 88-99." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.513, + 0.883, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaodong Jiang, Ronghang Zhu, Sheng Li, and Pengsheng Ji. 2020. Co-embedding of nodes and edges with graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.575, + 0.883, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, ChengXiang Zhai, and Quan Hung Tran. 2021. Joint biomedical entity and relation extraction with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6248-6260, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.702, + 0.883, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.777, + 0.883, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei Li, Meishan Zhang, Guohong Fu, and Donghong Ji. 2017. A neural joint model for entity and relation extraction from biomedical text. BMC bioinformatics, 18(1):1-11." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang Li, Guodong Long, Tao Shen, Tianyi Zhou, Lina Yao, Huan Huo, and Jing Jiang. 2020. Self-attention enhanced selective gate with entity-aware embedding for distantly supervised relation extraction. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8269-8276." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9032" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.162, + 0.487, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Luan, Luheng He, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018. Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreference for scientific knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3219-3232." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.25, + 0.486, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Luan, Dave Wadden, Luheng He, Amy Shah, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. A general framework for information extraction using dynamic span graphs. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 3036-3046." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.326, + 0.487, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ling Luo, Zhihao Yang, Mingyu Cao, Lei Wang, Yin Zhang, and Hongfei Lin. 2020. A neural network-based joint learning approach for biomedical entity and relation extraction from biomedical literature. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 103:103384." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.402, + 0.487, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diego Marcheggiani and Ivan Titov. 2017. Encoding sentences with graph convolutional networks for semantic role labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04826." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.463, + 0.487, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yali Pang, Tong Zhou, and Zhichang Zhang. 2021. A joint model for chinese medical entity and relation extraction based on graph convolutional networks. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICNLP), pages 119-124. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.539, + 0.487, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In European semantic web conference, pages 593-607. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.614, + 0.487, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yong Shang, Yu Tian, Min Zhou, Tianshu Zhou, Kewei Lyu, Zhixiao Wang, Ran Xin, Tingbo Liang, Shiqiang Zhu, and Jingsong Li. 2021. Ehr-oriented knowledge graph system: Toward efficient utilization of non-used information buried in routine clinical practice. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25(7):2463-2475." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.715, + 0.487, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Severine Verlinden, Klim Zaporojets, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2021. Injecting knowledge base information into end-to-end joint entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02286." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.791, + 0.487, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jue Wang and Wei Lu. 2020. Two are better than one: Joint entity and relation extraction with table-sequence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1706-1721." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Wang, Yue Zhang, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2018. Joint extraction of entities and relations based on a novel graph scheme. In *IJCAI*, pages 4461-4467. Yokohama." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhepei Wei, Jianlin Su, Yue Wang, Yuan Tian, and Yi Chang. 2020. A novel cascade binary tagging framework for relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1476-1488." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.882, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kui Xue, Yangming Zhou, Zhiyuan Ma, Tong Ruan, Huanhuan Zhang, and Ping He. 2019. Fine-tuning bert for joint entity and relation extraction in chinese medical text. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 892-897. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.264, + 0.882, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiheng Yan, Chong Zhang, Jinlan Fu, Qi Zhang, and Zhongyu Wei. 2021. A partition filter network for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 185-197, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.366, + 0.882, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shan Zhao, Minghao Hu, Zhiping Cai, and Fang Liu. 2021. Modeling dense cross-modal interactions for joint entity-relation extraction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4032-4038." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.455, + 0.882, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. 2021. A frustratingly easy approach for entity and relation extraction. In North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9033" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.555, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the \"Limitations\" section which is next to the section 5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.169, + 0.555, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? the \"Limitations\" section which is next to the section 5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.767, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the 1st section (introduction) and the \"abstract\" section which is ahead of section 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.256, + 0.67, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.767, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.49, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.216, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.348, + 0.531, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.348, + 0.882, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.788, + 0.309, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "section 4 (experiments)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 4.1.4 (Implementation details)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9034" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.118, + 0.435, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "section 4.1.4 (Implementation details)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.144, + 0.884, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.193, + 0.49, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the results are stable without large error bars" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.219, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.268, + 0.22, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "not used" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.883, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.375, + 0.25, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.45, + 0.25, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.476, + 0.884, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.525, + 0.25, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.876, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.568, + 0.25, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.881, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.627, + 0.25, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No response." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9035" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a92eabe943cae161a9875172ae2f88a0cb923ff --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/6a40fbbf-56bf-49e6-8124-4bc0f22ff171_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:75e78c71690d9f16f85de57aa92390e4962f63493ba74a49ec58ab2b0ef9b95b +size 2073979 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/full.md b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57657df999ac59e993fbabb0dba5f991d77d10fa --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,481 @@ +# Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction + +Zhe Yang,Yi Huang\* and Junlan Feng\* + +JIUTIAN Team, China Mobile Research Institute + +{yangzhe,huangyi,fengjunlan}@chinamobile.com + +# Abstract + +Automatic medical entity and relation extraction is essential for daily electronic medical record (EMR) analysis, and has attracted a lot of academic attention. Tremendous progress has been made in recent years. However, medical terms are difficult to understand, and their relations are more complicated than general ones. Based on this situation, domain knowledge gives better background and contexts for medical terms. Despite the benefits of medical domain knowledge, the utilization way of it for joint entity and relation extraction is inadequate. To foster this line of research, in this work, we propose to leverage the medical knowledge graph for extracting entities and relations for Chinese Medical Texts in a collective way. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph based on medical knowledge graph, which is linked to the entity mentions in the text. In this way, neighbors from the high-order heterogeneous graph can pass the message to each other for better global context representations. Our experiments on real Chinese Medical Texts show that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods. + +# 1 Introduction + +Medical text, e.g., electronic medical record (EMR), has been produced at a rapid speed and massive volume every day. Without any structured organization, this enormous volume of medical information is difficult to be read through by humans in a short time (Shang et al., 2021). Due to this situation, many researchers have recently paid great attention to the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical domain (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). + +The challenge of joint entity and relation extraction in medical domain is that medical terms are + +usually difficult to understand due to the requirement of medical domain knowledge, especially for abbreviations of medical terms in the medical text. Even worse, relations between medical entities become even more complicated. Therefore, medical domain knowledge that could provide meaningful contexts and backgrounds is essential for the better extraction of medical entities and relations. Despite the advantages of medical domain knowledge, most previous works fail to use medical domain knowledge (Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). They solely rely on the local information in the medical text to extract entities and relations with language model (LM), which is insufficient for incomprehensible medical terms and complicated relations between entities. + +Some recent works utilize medical knowledge for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) simply align entity representation (node representation) from knowledge graph to local texts and fail to explicitly introduce the complicated relation contexts (edge representation) in the medical knowledge graph to enhance the deep representations of their involved entities. Huang et al. (2020) propose graph edge-conditioned attention network (GEANet) which integrates initial static relation embedding into attention mechanism for entity representation enhancement in medical knowledge graph. Nonetheless, it leaves out relational update during knowledge graph training process. Battaglia et al. (2018) propound graph network (GN) framework to update node and edge features iteratively within a heterogeneous graph. However, the edge representation update is based on the sender and receiver nodes information it links, which will bring about fluctuation since the amount of nodes is far outweighed that of edge types. + +Therefore, we propose a method to fix these issues by providing additional relation contexts from + +![](images/2b8bc4a0dbb93fe13edb665d3f368aa2aab061944c1e0d140a641680a6e16494.jpg) +Figure 1: An example of the high-order heterogeneous graph: the left is original first-order graph searched directly from knowledge graph with $e_i$ and $r_i$ as entity and relation, respectively, and the right is its converted second-order graph where $t_{e_i}$ means the type of entity $e_i$ . + +medical knowledge graph to enrich the deep representations of entity mentions. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph, e.g., Fig. 1, to provide meaningful global contexts for its linked entity mentions. In Fig. 1, we denote $G_{e}$ as the standard first-order graph with entities as nodes and relations as edges, and represent $G_{r}$ as $G_{e}$ 's converted second-order graph with relations as nodes and entity types as edges. For every relation pair of an entity in $G_{e}$ , e.g., $r_{3}$ and $r_{2}$ , we link an edge, i.e., the entity type $t_{e_1}$ , in $G_{r}$ connecting them. In this way, both message passing of entities via different relations and message propagation of relations via different entity types can be well diffused in the global graph structure. After extracting the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, we fuse the entity and relation representations in the global context obtained from the high-order heterogeneous graph with the local information extracted from the medical text. + +To summarize, our contributions are: + +- We propose a high-order graph modeling method for knowledge fusion, which treats text related sub-graph as the first-order graph with entities as nodes and its converted graph as the second-order one with relations as nodes. We update the hidden representations of nodes in the two order graphs separately as the entity/relation representations for knowledge graph. + +- We present a knowledge-enhancement method for medical text encoding, which boosts the entity representation of the first-order graph with the feedback of the second-order relation representation. And it further enhances the encoding of the entity mentions from medical text for joint extraction. + +- We have performed substantial experiments against existing methods. Our evaluation results on real medical datasets verify that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods. + +The rest of this paper is organized as follows. + +Section 2 discusses related work. In Section 3, we introduce the typical algorithms for text and graph representation and present the proposed method for knowledge-enhanced joint extraction. Section 4 shows the evaluation results on two datasets with compared to some other advanced methods. We conclude in Section 5. + +# 2 Related Work + +There are two categories of entity and relation extraction methods: pipeline-based methods and joint extraction methods. + +Pipeline-based entity and relation extraction methods: These work usually first extract entities as outputs, then extract relations for the returned entities. The drawback of pipeline-based extraction methods is that the errors of entity extraction may be accumulated when extracting relations for the already returned entities. For example, Zhong and Chen (2021) put forward an extra encoder and fuse the entity type information to enhance entity pair representation during the relation extraction task. + +Jointly entity and relation extraction methods: Some recent work extracts entity and relation in a collective way to overcome the accumulated error problem in the pipeline-based methods. There are two kinds of standard extraction methods, which are non-knowledge-enhanced and knowledge-enhanced methods. + +Most joint entity and relation extraction methods ignore the domain knowledge. Wang et al. (2018) utilize a novel graph scheme to solve the problem. Luan et al. (2018) apply multi-task method to optimize entities, relations, and coreference simultaneously.Bekoulis et al. (2018) further propose multi-context based adversarial training method. Luan et al. (2019) utilize dynamic span graphs to form a general framework. Fu et al. (2019) model text as relational graphs for joint extraction. Zhao et al. (2021) model dense cross-modal interactions for joint extraction. Wang and Lu (2020) apply table-sequence encoders to extract jointly. Lin et al. (2020) apply neural model for information extraction with global features. Recently, Eberts and Ulges (2020) propose a span-based method with transformer pre-training. Further, Ji et al. (2020) apply span-based method with attention-based spanspecific and contextual semantic representations. Moreover, Wei et al. (2020) propose a cascade binary tagging framework for entity and relation extraction. Yan et al. (2021) propose a partition filter + +network for joint entity and relation extraction. Despite that these works extract entity and relation in a joint way, they are not designed for medical text. While some previous works are designed for medical text, they ignore the help of medical domain knowledge when modeling (e.g., Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). Only a few works incorporate medical domain knowledge to enhance the contexts of the medical text for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). Among them, Lai et al., 2021 extract entity and relation jointly with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. Verlinden et al. (2021) inject knowledge base information into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously. However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) fail to explicitly incorporate complicated relation contexts for their involved entities. Thus the interaction between entity and relation extraction will not be captured. Our method overcomes this drawback by providing relation contexts when modeling deep representations of entities. + +Most of the current work does not use domain knowledge, or only uses the entity context in domain knowledge, and does not include the relation context. While we explicitly model the entity context and relation context as the important context information for entity span, which improves the results of joint extraction. + +# 3 Proposed Method + +Fig. 2 shows the framework of our method. It first extracts the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph (Section 3.1), and learns entity and relation representation from the global context (Section 3.2). After that, we learn the representation of entity mentions from the local context in the medical text (Section 3.3). The fusion of entity representations from both global and local contexts and its corresponding relation representation (Section 3.4) is utilized to extract entities and relations in a collective way (Section 3.5). + +# 3.1 High-order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction + +The challenge is that there are multiple relations in the heterogeneous graph, and modeling entities together with their contextual relation information is non-trivial. We propose to construct a high-order + +heterogeneous graph from the knowledge graph for the medical text, such that the text representation contains additional global knowledge contexts of related entities and relations. + +The high-order heterogeneous graph comprises of first-order graph (a text related sub-graph of original knowledge graph) and its converted second-order graph. Given a piece of medical text expressed as words $t = (w_0, w_1, \dots, w_i, \dots, w_k)$ and a domain knowledge graph $G = (V, \varepsilon, E)$ , the goal of high-order heterogeneous graph extraction is to obtain $G_e = (V_e, E_e)$ and $G_r = (V_r, E_r)$ . Specifically, + +$$ +V _ {e} = V \cap \left\{w _ {i} \right\}, +$$ + +$$ +\left(e _ {i}, r _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}}, e _ {j}\right) \in \varepsilon , \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +r _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}} = E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}), +$$ + +where $v_{e_i}, v_{e_j} \in V_e, r_{e_i, e_j} \in E_e$ and $\varepsilon$ is the set of all triplets $\{(e_h, r_{e_h, e_t}, e_t)\}$ in knowledge graph. And + +$$ +V _ {r} \subseteq E _ {e}, +$$ + +$$ +E _ {r} \subseteq T \left(V _ {e}\right), \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +\mathbb {I} (E _ {r} (E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}), E _ {e} (e _ {l}, e _ {m}))) = \mathbb {I} (e _ {i} = e _ {m} \lor e _ {j} = e _ {l}), +$$ + +where $T(.)$ means the type of an entity. $\mathbb{I}$ is the indicator function and $\mathbb{I}(E_r(.))$ measures whether the edge $E_{r}(.)$ in second-order graph exists. + +Hence, it first searches through the medical knowledge graph to extract all triplets as the first-order graph pertaining to current medical text, and converts it to the second-order graph with nodes and edges switched. To be detailed, we traverse nodes, i.e., entities, in the first-order graph and collect their in and out edges, i.e., relations. Concretely, when it is the head entity in a triplet, we call the corresponding relation the out relation, conversely, the in relation. For any in-out relation pair of an entity, we consider relations as nodes for the second-order graph, and the type of the corresponding entity as the edge linking them. As it can be seen in the High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction Module part of Fig. 2, a Chinese entity "鹅口疮(thrush)" is revolved around by relations of "可能疾病(possible disease)", "并发症(complication)" and "传染方式(mode of infection)" in the first-order graph, during which the first two are in relations, and the other is the out relation. For any in-out relation pair, e.g., "并发症-传染方式", we take them as two nodes in the + +![](images/1e71513ef52fd210430366c556f911b45a4a4ef15bf5b5685f76252f64242e9a.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Details of each step are from Section 3.1 to 3.5. + +converted second-order graph and the type of the entity “鹅口疮”, i.e., “疾病(disease)” as the linking edge. As a counter example, “可能疾病” and “并发症” are all in relations for entity “鹅口疮”, therefore, no edge exists to link them. We merely link the in-out relation pair on account of the message flowing direction, i.e., from head entity to tail entity. + +This high-order heterogeneous graph we propose is distinguished from the node layer and edge layer in Jiang et al. (2020), which lies in two aspects: + +(1) We only consider the in-out relation pairs as edges for second-order graph, which better reflects the direction of information flow, while Jiang et al. (2020) links all relation pairs. +(2) The edge in second-order graph represents the entity type in our method, however, it remains as the entity by authors of Jiang et al. (2020), where the number of entities is very huge and will not be feasible for GNN to learn. + +# 3.2 High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Modeling + +Our idea is to propagate messages among both the first-order graph $G_{e}$ and the converted second-order graph $G_{r}$ in Fig. 2, in order to capture the complex global information from knowledge graph. Hence, entity mentions in the medical text can integrate their local information with the related global + +contexts for the better encoding. + +We first propagate message among the standard first-order graph $G_{e}$ with relational graph convolutional network (RGCN) (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). We apply TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) as the initialization of the embedding for each node $v_{i}$ . The embedding of each node $v_{i}$ , i.e., entity, can be updated as: + +$$ +v _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \operatorname {R e L U} \left(\mathrm {U} ^ {l} v _ {i} ^ {l} + \sum_ {k \in R} \sum_ {v _ {j} \in N _ {i} ^ {k}} \left(\frac {1}{\left| N _ {i} ^ {k} \right|} \mathrm {U} _ {k} ^ {l} v _ {j} ^ {l}\right)\right), \tag {3} +$$ + +where $v_{i}^{l}$ is the embedding of the node $v_{i}$ at layer $l$ . $N_{i}^{k}$ is the set of neighbors of $v_{i}$ under relation $k$ . $\mathbf{U}^{l}$ is the trainable parameter at layer $l$ . $\mathbf{U}_{k}^{l}$ is relation specific weighted parameter. + +We further model the global contexts in the converted second-order graph $G_{r}$ . Different from the first-order graph $G_{e}$ , the nodes and edges in second-order graph represent relations and entity types respectively. We pass messages among the neighbors of the node, i.e., relation $r_i$ , via different entity types in graph $G_{r}$ . Then the information among multiple entity types of relation $r_i$ can be summarized. Here the initialization of the embedding for each relation $r_i$ is also obtained by the TransE model. The embedding of each node, i.e., relation $r_i$ , is integrated by the deep representations of its + +neighbors as: + +$$ +r _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \operatorname {R e L U} \left(\mathrm {O} ^ {l} r _ {i} ^ {l} + \sum_ {t \in T} \sum_ {r _ {j} \in N _ {i} ^ {t}} \left(\frac {1}{\left| N _ {i} ^ {t} \right|} \mathrm {O} _ {t} ^ {l} r _ {j} ^ {l}\right)\right), \tag {4} +$$ + +where $r_i^l$ is the embedding of the relation $r_i$ at layer $l$ . $N_i^t$ is the set of neighbors of relation $r_i$ under the entity type $t \in T$ , while $|N_i^t|$ is the number of neighbors of $r_i$ . $\mathrm{O}^l$ is the trainable parameter at layer $l$ . And ReLU is the activation function. + +The high-order heterogeneous graph modeling provides deep representations for the entities and relations. Therefore, complicated relation information can be well preserved for the involved entities in the modeling of Section 3.5. + +# 3.3 Spans Representation with Transformer Encoder + +After modeling the high-order heterogeneous graph extracted from the medical knowledge graph, we then model the local contexts in the medical text. The medical text is organized here as tokens $t = (x_0, x_1, \dots, x_i, \dots, x_{n-1})$ , and a successive sequence $(x_{s_i}, \dots, x_{e_i})$ in text is a span which means an entity mention for medical text. Each span $s_i$ is modeled as: + +$$ +s _ {i} = g _ {s} \left(\left[ x _ {s _ {i}}, x _ {e _ {i}}, \hat {x} _ {i}, \phi (s _ {i}) \right]\right), \tag {5} +$$ + +where $x_{s_i}$ denotes the token level embedding from the transformer encoder, e.g., BERT, of the start of span $s_i$ , while $x_{e_i}$ represents the token level embedding of the end of span $s_i$ . $\hat{x}_i$ is an attention-weighted sum of the token representations in the span. And $\phi(s_i)$ is a feature vector modeling the length of $s_i$ . $g_s$ is a feed-forward neural network (Lee et al., 2017). + +Then a span-based GCN is applied on the graph with spans as nodes and relations between spans as edges: + +$$ +h _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = h _ {i} ^ {l} + f _ {s p a n} ^ {l} \left(\operatorname {R e L U} \left(f _ {s} ^ {l} \left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\right), f _ {s ^ {\prime}} ^ {l} \left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\right)\right)\right), \tag {6} +$$ + +and + +$$ +f_{s}^{l}(h_{i}^{l}) = \sum_{s_{j}\in s_{set},j\neq i}\sum_{k\in R}r_{ij}[k](W_{k}h_{j}^{l} + b_{k}), +$$ + +$$ +f _ {s ^ {\prime}} ^ {l} \left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\right) = \sum_ {s _ {j} \in s _ {\text {s e t}}, j \neq i} \sum_ {k \in R} r _ {j i} [ k ] \left(W _ {k} ^ {\prime} h _ {j} ^ {l} + b _ {k} ^ {\prime}\right), \tag {7} +$$ + +$$ +r _ {i j} [ k ] = S o f t m a x (f _ {r} ([ s _ {i}, s _ {j}, s _ {i} \circ s _ {j} ])) [ k ], +$$ + +where $h_i^{l+1}$ is the deep representation of $s_i$ at the layer $l+1$ , $f_{span}$ and $f_r$ are feedforward neural networks. $f_s^l$ and $f_{s'}^l$ are bidirectional GCN (Marchegiani and Titov, 2017; Fu et al., 2019) for $h_i^l$ , $r_{ij}[k]$ . + +measures the relation score for relation $k$ between spans of $s_i$ and $s_j$ , $\circ$ denotes the element-wise multiplication. And $h_i^0$ is initialized as $s_i$ . + +# 3.4 Knowledge Graph Enhanced Span Representation + +After applying span-based GCN, we obtain the hidden representation $h_i$ of span $s_i$ derived from local context, e.g., the medical text. Then we apply an attention mechanism (Lai et al., 2021) to integrate the deep representation of hidden representation $h_i$ of span $s_i$ from the local medical text with the deep representation of entities $v_i$ from the global contexts in the first-order graph as $f_{i_e}$ : + +$$ +f _ {i _ {e}} = W _ {i _ {e}} f _ {c _ {e}} \left(h _ {i}\right) + \sum_ {v _ {j} \in C \left(s _ {i _ {e}}\right)} W _ {i j _ {e}} f _ {v} \left(v _ {j}\right), \tag {8} +$$ + +where $C(s_{i_e})$ is the candidate set of entities corresponding to span $s_i$ in the dual heterogeneous graph. And $f_{c_e}(h_i)$ and $f_v(v_j)$ are the transformed representation of $h_i$ and $v_j$ by two feedforward neural networks. And $W_{i_e}$ and $W_{ij_e}$ are attention scores of the two transformed representations: + +$$ +W _ {i _ {e}} = \frac {\exp (\alpha_ {i _ {e}})}{(\exp (\alpha_ {i _ {e}}) + \sum_ {v _ {j} \in C (s _ {i})} \exp (\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}))}, \tag {9} +$$ + +and + +$$ +W _ {i j _ {e}} = \frac {\exp \left(\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\right)}{\left(\exp \left(\alpha_ {i _ {e}}\right) + \sum_ {v _ {j} \in C (s _ {i})} \exp \left(\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\right)\right)}. \tag {10} +$$ + +Here $\alpha_{ij_e}$ and $\alpha_{i_e}$ are importance scores of the transformed entity representation $v_j$ and the transformed span representation $h_i$ to the span representation $h_i$ : + +$$ +\alpha_ {i j _ {e}} = f _ {\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {v} (v _ {j}) ]), \tag {11} +$$ + +and + +$$ +\alpha_ {i _ {e}} = f _ {\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {c _ {e}} (h _ {i}) ]), \tag {12} +$$ + +where $f_{\alpha_e}$ is a feedforward neural network. + +Next, we fuse the deep representations of relations $r_i$ from the global contexts in the second-order graph $G_r$ with the deep representation $h_i$ of span $s_i$ from the local medical text. Distinguished from first-order graph fusion in equation 8, we argue that the corresponding relations in second-order graph may be irrelevant to the span depending on current medical text, and arouse disproportionate or even noisy aggregating representations for + +local context. Therefore, a selective gate mechanism (Li et al., 2020) is utilized to perform this fusion as $f_{i_r}$ : + +$$ +f _ {i _ {r}} = g _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \left(h _ {i}\right) + \sum_ {r _ {j} \in C \left(s _ {i _ {r}}\right)} g _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \left(r _ {j}\right), \tag {13} +$$ + +where $C(s_{i_r})$ is the candidate set of relations in the second-order heterogeneous graph for the span $s_i$ . To be detailed, $C(s_{i_r})$ is a subset of relations from knowledge graph triplets where $s_i$ holds as head or tail entity. And $f_{c_r}(h_i)$ and $f_r(r_j)$ are the transformed representation of $h_i$ and $r_j$ by two feedforward neural networks. And $g_{i_r}$ and $g_{ij_r}$ are gate scores of the two transformed representations: + +$$ +g _ {i _ {r}} = \sigma \left(W _ {2} \left(\operatorname {R e L U} \left(W _ {1} \left[ f _ {c _ {r}} \left(h _ {i}\right), h _ {i} \right] + b _ {1}\right) + b _ {2}\right), \right. \tag {14} +$$ + +and + +$$ +g _ {i j _ {r}} = \sigma \left(W _ {2} \left(\operatorname {R e L U} \left(W _ {1} \left[ f _ {r} \left(r _ {j}\right), h _ {i} \right] + b _ {1}\right) + b _ {2}\right), \right. \tag {15} +$$ + +where $\sigma$ is the Sigmoid activate function which maps the results into the interval of $(0,1)$ . + +Then, the fused representation $f_{i}$ can be modeled as: + +$$ +f _ {i} = \left(W _ {\text {s u m} _ {e}} f _ {i _ {e}} + W _ {\text {s u m} _ {r}} f _ {i _ {r}}\right) | | h _ {i}, \tag {16} +$$ + +which means an integration of deep representation among entities, relations and the span. $W_{sum_e}$ and $W_{sum_r}$ serve as feedforward neural networks. || means concatenation operation. + +# 3.5 Collective Entity and Relation Extraction + +Finally, we map the integrated representation $f_{i}$ to the entity type space as: + +$$ +e _ {i} = \operatorname {S o f t m a x} \left(g _ {e} \left(f _ {i}\right)\right), \tag {17} +$$ + +where $g_{e}$ is a feed-forward neural network to map $f_{i}$ to the entity space. + +Similarly, the relation between span $i$ and $j$ can be mapped to the relation type space as: + +$$ +r _ {i j} = \operatorname {S o f t m a x} \left(g _ {r} \left(f _ {i}, f _ {j}\right)\right), \tag {18} +$$ + +where $g_{r}$ is a feed-forward neural network to map $f_{i}$ and $f_{j}$ to the relation space. + +The training of collectively extracting entity and relation can be optimized by minimizing the loss function as: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \mathcal {L} _ {e} + \mathcal {L} _ {r}, \tag {19} +$$ + +where $\mathcal{L}_e$ represents the cross-entropy loss of entities, and $\mathcal{L}_r$ denotes the cross-entropy loss of relations. + +Different from the pipeline way that optimizes entities and relations in separate steps, our method conducts the optimization in an end-to-end mode. In this way, the errors of extracting entities and relations can be reduced collectively. + +# 4 Experiments + +In this section, we evaluate our model with extensive experiments. We first show the experimental setup, which contains datasets, baselines for comparison, and evaluation metrics. Then we evaluate the effectiveness of our model and baselines. + +# 4.1 Experimental Setup + +# 4.1.1 Datasets + +We evaluate our method on several real medical datasets with one medical knowledge graph dataset. + +Chinese Medical Text datasets: We evaluate our model on three Chinese medical text datasets. + +- The first medical text dataset is the CHIP2020 dataset1, which contains 17,924 sentences from biomedical Chinese text that captures relations between medical entities (Guan et al., 2020). The dataset includes a pediatric labeled corpus for hundreds of common diseases. The training and testing splits contain 14,339 and 3,585 sentences, respectively. +- The next medical dataset is the CHIP-2022 dataset ${}^{2}$ ,which contains 1000 samples and is split into 850/150 for training and testing set, respectively. CHIP2022 aims to extract casual, entailment and conditional relations between entities whose type are not distinguished. In the experiments, we merely trace out the previous two types of relations for joint extraction. +- The third medical text dataset is the DiaKG dataset3, which contains sentences from diabetes text that reflects relations between medical entities (Chang et al., 2021). The dataset comes from 41 diabetes guidelines and consensuses from authoritative journals in China. The diabetes text contains 22,050 entities and 6,890 relationships. Finally, the prepossessed training and testing splits contain 1,170 and 239 sentences, respectively. + +
ModelCHIP-2020CHIP-2022DIAKG
EntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverall
PFN (Yan et al., 2021)72.252.762.559.342.050.763.044.553.8
CASREL (Wei et al., 2020)66.149.557.856.539.147.850.431.040.7
SPERT (Eberts and Ulges, 2020)73.550.161.857.838.748.365.529.147.3
KB-graph (Verlinden et al., 2021)73.961.867.965.032.548.869.351.160.2
KECI (Lai et al., 2021)74.361.167.763.432.648.072.655.163.8
KECI_nconv (Li et al., 2017)74.261.768.063.532.448.073.254.163.7
KECI_gea (Huang et al., 2020)75.661.068.361.832.547.273.154.964.0
KECI gn (Battaglia et al., 2018)74.760.567.664.032.448.273.954.564.2
Our Model76.561.869.266.732.549.674.254.464.3
+ +Table 1: Evaluation results (%) on CHIP-2020 & CHIP-2022 & DiaKG datasets. + +Chinese Medical knowledge graph dataset: We extract Chinese medical triplets from the public knowledge graph dataset $^{4}$ , which contains disease-related entities and disease-related triples. After preprocessing, we obtain 215,745 triplets for the medical knowledge graph. These triplets contain 16,735 entities and 13 relations, and the amount of entity types is 9. + +# 4.1.2 Baselines for comparison + +We compare our model with state-of-the-art joint extraction methods, variant versions of knowledge-enhanced baseline included. + +- PFN (Partition Filter Network) is an advanced joint extraction method that does not utilize a knowledge graph. It segments the encoder into entity extraction and relation extraction parts, and accomplishes NER-specific and relation-specific tasks with shared part separately (Yan et al., 2021). +- CASREL (Cascade Binary Tagging Framework for Relational Triple Extraction) is an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph enhancement. It models triplets extraction into head entity extraction as well as relation and tail entity extraction with fused head entity representation. The two parts share the same encoder for a joint extraction task (Wei et al., 2020). +- SPERT (Span-based Joint Entity and Relation Extraction with Transformer Pre-training) is also an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph context. It attaches entity labels for spans derived from the text, and traversed span pairs for relation judgement (Eberts and Ulges, 2020). +- KB-graph is an advanced joint extraction method, which injects medical knowledge into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously (Verlinden et al., 2021). +- KECI (Knowledge-Enhanced Collective Inference) is an advanced joint extraction method, which extracts entity and relation collectively with + +knowledge-enhanced collective inference. It utilizes RGCN algorithm for knowledge graph representation (Lai et al., 2021). Compared with the proposed method, KECI merely models the first-order graph for knowledge fusion. + +- KECI_nnconv is the variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) in which the NNConv (Gilmer et al., 2017) is utilized instead of RGCN. Different from RGCN, NNConv fuses the initial edge feature for message propagation and further enhances the node representation, which is similar to GEANet. +- KECI_gea is one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) that the RGCN part is replaced by GEANet (Huang et al., 2020) which is similar to NNCONV. +- KECI_gn is also one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) where the node and edge features are simultaneously derived from the graph net (GN) framework (Battaglia et al., 2018). + +# 4.1.3 Evaluation metrics + +We evaluate methods by Micro-F1 scores for entity and relation extraction. Also, we use the average Micro-F1 scores of entities and their relations in each medical text as the overall scores for each medical text. + +# 4.1.4 Implementation details + +We implement our method with PyTorch and MedBERT-kd Transformer $^{5}$ which is based on the structure of BERT and trained on a mount of Chinese clinic texts. The number of parameters of our model is 135,557,734. We conduct hyperparameter tuning by using a Bayesian optimizer for all the methods on real datasets. The scopes of hyper-parameters are: $\{16,32\}$ for batch size, $\{2e-5,3e-5,4e-5,5e-5\}$ for lower learning rate, $\{1e-4,2e-4,5e-4\}$ for upper learning rate. + +A coarse-to-fine training process is applied during training process. Firstly, we leave out the + +![](images/32fee73595c2bb5482164e7fb41f0baba7edbb0c09b60a0eb8d1ecd7e195c926.jpg) +Figure 3: The ablation study results w.r.t. overall Micro-F1 scores on CHIP-2020/CHIP2022/DiaKG datasets. + +![](images/f5afe7aed439cc5d074e1cb4f2d8169c6fbb5efd1b3f6a16966397cef32dbf04.jpg) + +![](images/e2fba9cef4ee6ac444b360b37757d640368f6486346f71ca525601df00001f02.jpg) + +knowledge graph fusion part and only employ hidden representations of spans from the local context to train a better downstream task-specific BERT structure. After that, global information from knowledge graph representation is added for a precise training. + +We evaluate all models with GPUs on the JIUTIAN Platform of China Mobile Research Institute. + +# 4.2 Evaluation results + +We evaluate the effectiveness of all methods on three real datasets in Table 1, where we show the Micro-F1 values of both entities and relations. We also show the averaged overall Micro-F1 values. From Table 1, we make the following observations: + +(1) KECI outperforms other joint extraction methods which do not involve medical knowledge graph. For example, KECI has $9.9\%$ , $0.2\%$ and $23.1\%$ improvements compared with CASREL on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that the medical knowledge graph is essential for providing more contexts in joint entity and relation extraction. +(2) Our model works better than KECI in overall values. Specifically, our model achieves $1.5\%$ , $1.6\%$ and $0.5\%$ improvements compared with the KECI model on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It verifies that high-order graph context could provide more information for text modeling. Moreover, before adding relation context, as shown in Table 1, the Micro-F1 score of the entity for KECI is $74.3\%$ on CHIP-2020 dataset, while our method uses relation context and Micro-F1 is increased to $76.5\%$ . On average, there are $2.2\%$ , $3.3\%$ , and $1.6\%$ improvements on the three datasets respectively after adding relation contexts. It can be seen that the relation context does have a significant effect on improving the entity value. +(3) Results in CHIP-2022 show that our model + +has a little poorer performance than that of PFN in overall score, however, we still prevail much in entity result. This is attributed to the fact that the relation types in CHIP-2022 dataset are all logical types, such as casual and entailment relations, which varies considerably from medical knowledge graph. + +We further make detailed evaluation on all the entity types which can be seen in table 2 and 3. Generally, our model achieves a higher F1 score among entity types, especially in the less-train-instance targets, e.g., "部位(part)", "其他治疗(other therapy) ", "其他(others)" in CHIP-2020 dataset and "Amount", "Method", "Pathogenesis" in DiaKG dataset, our model performs almost above $4\%$ better than KECI (Lai et al., 2021). When mentioning CHIP-2022 data, we neglect the entity type results owing to its lack of discrimination between entity types. + +We also make comparisons between proposed high-order heterogeneous graph modeling method and some typical graph neural networks (GNN). We can conclude that the high-order graph modeling for both entity and relation update is more efficient than a single order heterogeneous graph modeling for entity representation, even with the extra relation update. Details are as follows: + +(1) The proposed model exceeds KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by $1.2\%$ , $0.9\%$ , $1.6\%$ , respectively, in CHIP-2020 dataset. +(2) The proposed model surpasses KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by $1.6\%$ , $2.4\%$ , $1.4\%$ , respectively, in CHIP-2022 dataset. +(3) The proposed model beats KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by $0.6\%$ , $0.3\%$ , $0.1\%$ , respectively, in DiaKG dataset. + +
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
surgery55.7854.3055.0347.3464.9054.75
inspection65.7561.0363.3058.0772.3164.41
epidemiology60.7658.2259.4652.9273.2661.45
disease70.0484.5276.6079.9580.2480.09
symptom71.7063.1267.1468.0072.7470.29
sociology66.8346.6454.9460.1457.7958.94
medicine61.2775.6867.7266.8475.7871.03
part72.9346.4156.7260.3566.2763.17
prognosis------
other-therapy47.7033.2439.1847.6738.7842.77
others---100.005.8311.02
+ +Table 2: Entity evaluation details (%) on CHIP-2020 dataset. (- means the result is zero.) + +
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
ADE68.4254.1760.4777.5552.7862.81
Amount20.0017.6518.7526.6723.5325.00
Anatomy79.3192.0085.1882.5192.0087.00
Class87.1360.6971.5586.2760.6971.25
Disease78.2277.4977.8573.4082.6077.73
Drug65.0275.2469.7666.8077.6271.80
Method---36.8450.0042.42
Pathogenesis---22.2225.0023.53
Reason30.0033.3331.58---
Symptom48.1540.6244.0752.1737.5043.63
Test43.3361.9050.9850.0066.6757.14
Test_items59.5460.9460.2353.9968.7560.48
Treatment42.8657.6949.1838.2450.0043.34
Operation------
+ +Table 3: Entity evaluation details $(\%)$ on DiaKG dataset. (- means the result is zero.) + +# 4.3 Ablation Study + +We conduct an ablation study on our model to evaluate the effectiveness of its main modules in Figures 3. Specifically, we compare our model with the following variants w.r.t. the overall score of each medical text, i.e., average Micro-F1 score of entities and relation in each medical text. + +- MnoKG (Model without Knowledge Graph) ignores knowledge graph for triplets extraction. +- MEnt (Model with Entity) merely fuses first-order graph into medical text for joint extraction. +- MRel (Model with Relation) merely fuses second-order graph into medical text for extraction. +- MnoGNN (Model without GNN update) fuses initial node representations of high-order graph from TransE into text without GNN to update. +- MRAtt (Model with Relation Attention fusion) is one variant version of our model, which uses an attention mechanism in Equation 20 to replace Equation 16 for relation fusion: + +$$ +f _ {i _ {r}} = W _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \left(h _ {i}\right) + \sum_ {r _ {j} \in C \left(s _ {i _ {r}}\right)} W _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \left(r _ {j}\right), \tag {20} +$$ + +where $W_{i_r}$ and $W_{ij_r}$ are similar to 9 and 10, respectively. + +From the Figures, we make the following observations: + +(1) Our model beats MnoKG on all real datasets. In particular, the performance improvements of our model are $8.9\%$ , $6.3\%$ and $5.9\%$ better compared with MnoKG on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that using medical knowledge graph is important for providing external contexts. +(2) Our model outperforms MEnt. For example, the overall improvements are $1.5\%$ , $1.6\%$ and $0.5\%$ compared with MEnt on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It justifies that the second-order graph provides a positive feedback for the first-order representations and further enhance the encoding of entity mentions in medical text. +(3) Our model surpasses MRel and the rate is less than that of MEnt. It seems the second-order graph plays a major role in dual heterogeneous graph for joint extraction task. +(4) Our model precedes MnoGNN. Specifically, the exceeding values are $1.2\%$ , $2.5\%$ and $0.1\%$ for the datasets. It shows that the GNN update part is vital for a better knowledge graph information fusion. +(5) The MEnt model only added the first-order graph, and the MRel only added the second-order graph. It can be seen from the data that the effect of MRel is better than that of MEnt. Second-order graph can improve entity extraction even more effectively, because it acts directly on the entity span. +(6) Our model performs better than MRAtt. To be specific, the overall improvement of our model is $0.5\% / 1.5\%$ compared with MRAtt on CHIP-2020/CHIP-2022 datasets and the result is comparable to that of MRAtt on DiaKG dataset. It means that the selective gate mechanism can improve the performance for relation fusion. + +# 5 Conclusions + +In this paper, we study the problem of the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical text. We propose to construct the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, and learn the entity span representations in a knowledge-enhanced which integrates the deep representations from both global and local contexts. The extraction of entities and relations is in a collective way. The experimental results show that our model is more effective than state-of-the-art methods. + +# Limitations + +We inject the medical knowledge graph into local texts for entity span representations enhancement. However, unlike most joint extraction methods, the proposed model is hard to be trained in a parallel way. Therefore, it is time-consuming to obtain a well-trained model. We would like to optimize the architecture of the model in the future. + +Moreover, our model is adapted to Chinese medical texts where a token usually means a character (not a word). Hence, there will be errors when aligning the entities from the knowledge graph with mentions from local texts. Word segmentation task will be considered in our future work. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work is supported by China Mobile Holistic Artificial Intelligence Major Project Funding (R22105ZS, R22105ZSC01) and National Key R&D Program of China (2021ZD0140408). + +# References + +Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gülcehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charlie Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Manfred Otto Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. ArXiv, abs/1806.01261. +Giannis Bekoulis, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2018. Adversarial training for multi-context joint entity and relation extraction. In EMNLP. +Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26. +Dejie Chang, Mosha Chen, Chaozhen Liu, Liping Liu, Dongdong Li, Wei Li, Fei Kong, Bangchang Liu, Xiaobin Luo, Ji Qi, et al. 2021. Diakg: An annotated diabetes dataset for medical knowledge graph construction. In China Conference on Knowledge Graph and Semantic Computing, pages 308-314. Springer. +Markus Eberts and Adrian Ulges. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with transformer pre-training. In *ECAI* 2020, pages 2006-2013. IOS Press. + +Tsu-Jui Fu, Peng-Hsuan Li, and Wei-Yun Ma. 2019. Graphrel: Modeling text as relational graphs for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1409-1418. +Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E. Dahl. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1263-1272. +T. Guan, H. Zan, X. Zhou, H. Xu, and K Zhang. 2020. CMeIE: Construction and Evaluation of Chinese Medical Information Extraction Dataset. Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, 9th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part I. +Kung-Hsiang Huang, Mu Yang, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. Biomedical event extraction with hierarchical knowledge graphs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1277-1285, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Bin Ji, Jie Yu, Shasha Li, Jun Ma, Qingbo Wu, Yusong Tan, and Huijun Liu. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with attention-based span-specific and contextual semantic representations. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 88-99. +Xiaodong Jiang, Ronghang Zhu, Sheng Li, and Pengsheng Ji. 2020. Co-embedding of nodes and edges with graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. +Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, ChengXiang Zhai, and Quan Hung Tran. 2021. Joint biomedical entity and relation extraction with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6248-6260, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197. +Fei Li, Meishan Zhang, Guohong Fu, and Donghong Ji. 2017. A neural joint model for entity and relation extraction from biomedical text. BMC bioinformatics, 18(1):1-11. +Yang Li, Guodong Long, Tao Shen, Tianyi Zhou, Lina Yao, Huan Huo, and Jing Jiang. 2020. Self-attention enhanced selective gate with entity-aware embedding for distantly supervised relation extraction. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8269-8276. + +Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009. +Yi Luan, Luheng He, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018. Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreference for scientific knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3219-3232. +Yi Luan, Dave Wadden, Luheng He, Amy Shah, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. A general framework for information extraction using dynamic span graphs. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 3036-3046. +Ling Luo, Zhihao Yang, Mingyu Cao, Lei Wang, Yin Zhang, and Hongfei Lin. 2020. A neural network-based joint learning approach for biomedical entity and relation extraction from biomedical literature. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 103:103384. +Diego Marcheggiani and Ivan Titov. 2017. Encoding sentences with graph convolutional networks for semantic role labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04826. +Yali Pang, Tong Zhou, and Zhichang Zhang. 2021. A joint model for chinese medical entity and relation extraction based on graph convolutional networks. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICNLP), pages 119-124. IEEE. +Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In European semantic web conference, pages 593-607. Springer. +Yong Shang, Yu Tian, Min Zhou, Tianshu Zhou, Kewei Lyu, Zhixiao Wang, Ran Xin, Tingbo Liang, Shiqiang Zhu, and Jingsong Li. 2021. Ehr-oriented knowledge graph system: Toward efficient utilization of non-used information buried in routine clinical practice. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25(7):2463-2475. +Severine Verlinden, Klim Zaporojets, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2021. Injecting knowledge base information into end-to-end joint entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02286. +Jue Wang and Wei Lu. 2020. Two are better than one: Joint entity and relation extraction with table-sequence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1706-1721. +Shaolei Wang, Yue Zhang, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2018. Joint extraction of entities and relations based on a novel graph scheme. In *IJCAI*, pages 4461-4467. Yokohama. + +Zhepei Wei, Jianlin Su, Yue Wang, Yuan Tian, and Yi Chang. 2020. A novel cascade binary tagging framework for relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1476-1488. +Kui Xue, Yangming Zhou, Zhiyuan Ma, Tong Ruan, Huanhuan Zhang, and Ping He. 2019. Fine-tuning bert for joint entity and relation extraction in chinese medical text. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 892-897. IEEE. +Zhiheng Yan, Chong Zhang, Jinlan Fu, Qi Zhang, and Zhongyu Wei. 2021. A partition filter network for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 185-197, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shan Zhao, Minghao Hu, Zhiping Cai, and Fang Liu. 2021. Modeling dense cross-modal interactions for joint entity-relation extraction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4032-4038. +Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. 2021. A frustratingly easy approach for entity and relation extraction. In North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL). + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the "Limitations" section which is next to the section 5 +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? the "Limitations" section which is next to the section 5 +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the 1st section (introduction) and the "abstract" section which is ahead of section 1 +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response. +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response. +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response. +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response. +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response. +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response. + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +section 4 (experiments) + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 4.1.4 (Implementation details) + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? + +section 4.1.4 (Implementation details) + +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? + +the results are stable without large error bars + +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? + +not used + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? + +No response. + +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? + +No response. + +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? + +No response. + +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? + +No response. + +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? + +No response. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/images.zip b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..accea1672c439f16f246193e162ff3ee858e9052 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0a6d13ab7db29d9b1c6e570c193e7b006ad897485d4b650f8a85c7d5b2e6d66c +size 464877 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/layout.json b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..483ce3b7ad0b4f53b3adeaf1cbab1a88a866d715 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,12691 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 75, + 516, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 75, + 516, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 75, + 516, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning to Leverage High-Order Medical Knowledge Graph for Joint Entity and Relation Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 131, + 398, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 131, + 398, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 131, + 398, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhe Yang,Yi Huang\\* and Junlan Feng\\*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 146, + 418, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 146, + 418, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 146, + 418, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "JIUTIAN Team, China Mobile Research Institute" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 159, + 431, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 159, + 431, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 159, + 431, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yangzhe,huangyi,fengjunlan}@chinamobile.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 240, + 274, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 240, + 274, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 240, + 274, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic medical entity and relation extraction is essential for daily electronic medical record (EMR) analysis, and has attracted a lot of academic attention. Tremendous progress has been made in recent years. However, medical terms are difficult to understand, and their relations are more complicated than general ones. Based on this situation, domain knowledge gives better background and contexts for medical terms. Despite the benefits of medical domain knowledge, the utilization way of it for joint entity and relation extraction is inadequate. To foster this line of research, in this work, we propose to leverage the medical knowledge graph for extracting entities and relations for Chinese Medical Texts in a collective way. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph based on medical knowledge graph, which is linked to the entity mentions in the text. In this way, neighbors from the high-order heterogeneous graph can pass the message to each other for better global context representations. Our experiments on real Chinese Medical Texts show that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 565, + 154, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 565, + 154, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 565, + 154, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 291, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Medical text, e.g., electronic medical record (EMR), has been produced at a rapid speed and massive volume every day. Without any structured organization, this enormous volume of medical information is difficult to be read through by humans in a short time (Shang et al., 2021). Due to this situation, many researchers have recently paid great attention to the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical domain (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 726, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 726, + 291, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 726, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The challenge of joint entity and relation extraction in medical domain is that medical terms are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "usually difficult to understand due to the requirement of medical domain knowledge, especially for abbreviations of medical terms in the medical text. Even worse, relations between medical entities become even more complicated. Therefore, medical domain knowledge that could provide meaningful contexts and backgrounds is essential for the better extraction of medical entities and relations. Despite the advantages of medical domain knowledge, most previous works fail to use medical domain knowledge (Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). They solely rely on the local information in the medical text to extract entities and relations with language model (LM), which is insufficient for incomprehensible medical terms and complicated relations between entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Some recent works utilize medical knowledge for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) simply align entity representation (node representation) from knowledge graph to local texts and fail to explicitly introduce the complicated relation contexts (edge representation) in the medical knowledge graph to enhance the deep representations of their involved entities. Huang et al. (2020) propose graph edge-conditioned attention network (GEANet) which integrates initial static relation embedding into attention mechanism for entity representation enhancement in medical knowledge graph. Nonetheless, it leaves out relational update during knowledge graph training process. Battaglia et al. (2018) propound graph network (GN) framework to update node and edge features iteratively within a heterogeneous graph. However, the edge representation update is based on the sender and receiver nodes information it links, which will bring about fluctuation since the amount of nodes is far outweighed that of edge types." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, we propose a method to fix these issues by providing additional relation contexts from" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Corresponding authors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9023" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 9023-9035" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 807, + 417, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 72, + 270, + 116 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 72, + 270, + 116 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 72, + 270, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 72, + 270, + 116 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2b8bc4a0dbb93fe13edb665d3f368aa2aab061944c1e0d140a641680a6e16494.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An example of the high-order heterogeneous graph: the left is original first-order graph searched directly from knowledge graph with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as entity and relation, respectively, and the right is its converted second-order graph where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{e_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means the type of entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 124, + 291, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "medical knowledge graph to enrich the deep representations of entity mentions. Specifically, we propose to construct a high-order heterogeneous graph, e.g., Fig. 1, to provide meaningful global contexts for its linked entity mentions. In Fig. 1, we denote " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the standard first-order graph with entities as nodes and relations as edges, and represent " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'s converted second-order graph with relations as nodes and entity types as edges. For every relation pair of an entity in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we link an edge, i.e., the entity type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{e_1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 218, + 292, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " connecting them. In this way, both message passing of entities via different relations and message propagation of relations via different entity types can be well diffused in the global graph structure. After extracting the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, we fuse the entity and relation representations in the global context obtained from the high-order heterogeneous graph with the local information extracted from the medical text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 502, + 244, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 502, + 244, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 502, + 244, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To summarize, our contributions are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a high-order graph modeling method for knowledge fusion, which treats text related sub-graph as the first-order graph with entities as nodes and its converted graph as the second-order one with relations as nodes. We update the hidden representations of nodes in the two order graphs separately as the entity/relation representations for knowledge graph." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We present a knowledge-enhancement method for medical text encoding, which boosts the entity representation of the first-order graph with the feedback of the second-order relation representation. And it further enhances the encoding of the entity mentions from medical text for joint extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We have performed substantial experiments against existing methods. Our evaluation results on real medical datasets verify that our method is more effective than state-of-the-art methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The rest of this paper is organized as follows." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 2 discusses related work. In Section 3, we introduce the typical algorithms for text and graph representation and present the proposed method for knowledge-enhanced joint extraction. Section 4 shows the evaluation results on two datasets with compared to some other advanced methods. We conclude in Section 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 396, + 191 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 396, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 396, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 525, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 525, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 525, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are two categories of entity and relation extraction methods: pipeline-based methods and joint extraction methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pipeline-based entity and relation extraction methods: These work usually first extract entities as outputs, then extract relations for the returned entities. The drawback of pipeline-based extraction methods is that the errors of entity extraction may be accumulated when extracting relations for the already returned entities. For example, Zhong and Chen (2021) put forward an extra encoder and fuse the entity type information to enhance entity pair representation during the relation extraction task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jointly entity and relation extraction methods: Some recent work extracts entity and relation in a collective way to overcome the accumulated error problem in the pipeline-based methods. There are two kinds of standard extraction methods, which are non-knowledge-enhanced and knowledge-enhanced methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most joint entity and relation extraction methods ignore the domain knowledge. Wang et al. (2018) utilize a novel graph scheme to solve the problem. Luan et al. (2018) apply multi-task method to optimize entities, relations, and coreference simultaneously.Bekoulis et al. (2018) further propose multi-context based adversarial training method. Luan et al. (2019) utilize dynamic span graphs to form a general framework. Fu et al. (2019) model text as relational graphs for joint extraction. Zhao et al. (2021) model dense cross-modal interactions for joint extraction. Wang and Lu (2020) apply table-sequence encoders to extract jointly. Lin et al. (2020) apply neural model for information extraction with global features. Recently, Eberts and Ulges (2020) propose a span-based method with transformer pre-training. Further, Ji et al. (2020) apply span-based method with attention-based spanspecific and contextual semantic representations. Moreover, Wei et al. (2020) propose a cascade binary tagging framework for entity and relation extraction. Yan et al. (2021) propose a partition filter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9024" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "network for joint entity and relation extraction. Despite that these works extract entity and relation in a joint way, they are not designed for medical text. While some previous works are designed for medical text, they ignore the help of medical domain knowledge when modeling (e.g., Li et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020). Only a few works incorporate medical domain knowledge to enhance the contexts of the medical text for joint entity and relation extraction (Lai et al., 2021; Verlinden et al., 2021). Among them, Lai et al., 2021 extract entity and relation jointly with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. Verlinden et al. (2021) inject knowledge base information into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously. However, both Lai et al. (2021) and Verlinden et al. (2021) fail to explicitly incorporate complicated relation contexts for their involved entities. Thus the interaction between entity and relation extraction will not be captured. Our method overcomes this drawback by providing relation contexts when modeling deep representations of entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most of the current work does not use domain knowledge, or only uses the entity context in domain knowledge, and does not include the relation context. While we explicitly model the entity context and relation context as the important context information for entity span, which improves the results of joint extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 180, + 504 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 180, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 180, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Proposed Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fig. 2 shows the framework of our method. It first extracts the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph (Section 3.1), and learns entity and relation representation from the global context (Section 3.2). After that, we learn the representation of entity mentions from the local context in the medical text (Section 3.3). The fusion of entity representations from both global and local contexts and its corresponding relation representation (Section 3.4) is utilized to extract entities and relations in a collective way (Section 3.5)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 254, + 713 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 254, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 254, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 High-order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The challenge is that there are multiple relations in the heterogeneous graph, and modeling entities together with their contextual relation information is non-trivial. We propose to construct a high-order" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "heterogeneous graph from the knowledge graph for the medical text, such that the text representation contains additional global knowledge contexts of related entities and relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The high-order heterogeneous graph comprises of first-order graph (a text related sub-graph of original knowledge graph) and its converted second-order graph. Given a piece of medical text expressed as words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = (w_0, w_1, \\dots, w_i, \\dots, w_k)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a domain knowledge graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G = (V, \\varepsilon, E)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the goal of high-order heterogeneous graph extraction is to obtain " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_e = (V_e, E_e)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_r = (V_r, E_r)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Specifically," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 378, + 271, + 451, + 285 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 378, + 271, + 451, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 378, + 271, + 451, + 285 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "V _ {e} = V \\cap \\left\\{w _ {i} \\right\\},", + "image_path": "48957debb2ead18c8e72acbed05c9fa9f09cf4c8f2c7b6c580709767ed482015.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 287, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 287, + 525, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 287, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left(e _ {i}, r _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}}, e _ {j}\\right) \\in \\varepsilon , \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "9a74b1a270229947bba5396a208cf7098ddc079bb3105ecb485cea30d99bdc89.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 305, + 457, + 319 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 305, + 457, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 305, + 457, + 319 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "r _ {e _ {i}, e _ {j}} = E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}),", + "image_path": "6ad7b7dab958f1c8e51250a1740f43d27fae9bea63d9b75f0320348009f1aac0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{e_i}, v_{e_j} \\in V_e, r_{e_i, e_j} \\in E_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varepsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the set of all triplets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{(e_h, r_{e_h, e_t}, e_t)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in knowledge graph. And" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 379, + 435, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 379, + 435, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 379, + 435, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "V _ {r} \\subseteq E _ {e},", + "image_path": "9c4f02606796066a52cfc654141c10c54e1f566dcc3a32934d892567d0bec74a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 385, + 395, + 524, + 407 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 385, + 395, + 524, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 385, + 395, + 524, + 407 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "E _ {r} \\subseteq T \\left(V _ {e}\\right), \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "10fd77de59997647660e93f51d43aba323af9bb2f4ac0cb841095325431caec4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 411, + 521, + 426 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 411, + 521, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 411, + 521, + 426 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb {I} (E _ {r} (E _ {e} (e _ {i}, e _ {j}), E _ {e} (e _ {l}, e _ {m}))) = \\mathbb {I} (e _ {i} = e _ {m} \\lor e _ {j} = e _ {l}),", + "image_path": "1a6735b119c918c16a19040142c7b86cc1e3df527cff715e49f6c24a94b98cbf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T(.)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means the type of an entity. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the indicator function and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{I}(E_r(.))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measures whether the edge " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{r}(.)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in second-order graph exists." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hence, it first searches through the medical knowledge graph to extract all triplets as the first-order graph pertaining to current medical text, and converts it to the second-order graph with nodes and edges switched. To be detailed, we traverse nodes, i.e., entities, in the first-order graph and collect their in and out edges, i.e., relations. Concretely, when it is the head entity in a triplet, we call the corresponding relation the out relation, conversely, the in relation. For any in-out relation pair of an entity, we consider relations as nodes for the second-order graph, and the type of the corresponding entity as the edge linking them. As it can be seen in the High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Extraction Module part of Fig. 2, a Chinese entity \"鹅口疮(thrush)\" is revolved around by relations of \"可能疾病(possible disease)\", \"并发症(complication)\" and \"传染方式(mode of infection)\" in the first-order graph, during which the first two are in relations, and the other is the out relation. For any in-out relation pair, e.g., \"并发症-传染方式\", we take them as two nodes in the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9025" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 519, + 329 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 519, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 519, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 519, + 329 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1e71513ef52fd210430366c556f911b45a4a4ef15bf5b5685f76252f64242e9a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 336, + 487, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 336, + 487, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 336, + 487, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Details of each step are from Section 3.1 to 3.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 370, + 290, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 370, + 290, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 370, + 290, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "converted second-order graph and the type of the entity “鹅口疮”, i.e., “疾病(disease)” as the linking edge. As a counter example, “可能疾病” and “并发症” are all in relations for entity “鹅口疮”, therefore, no edge exists to link them. We merely link the in-out relation pair on account of the message flowing direction, i.e., from head entity to tail entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This high-order heterogeneous graph we propose is distinguished from the node layer and edge layer in Jiang et al. (2020), which lies in two aspects:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 290, + 644 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 290, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) We only consider the in-out relation pairs as edges for second-order graph, which better reflects the direction of information flow, while Jiang et al. (2020) links all relation pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 290, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 290, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 290, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) The edge in second-order graph represents the entity type in our method, however, it remains as the entity by authors of Jiang et al. (2020), where the number of entities is very huge and will not be feasible for GNN to learn." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 658, + 257, + 686 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 658, + 257, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 658, + 257, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 High-Order Heterogeneous Graph Modeling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our idea is to propagate messages among both the first-order graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the converted second-order graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Fig. 2, in order to capture the complex global information from knowledge graph. Hence, entity mentions in the medical text can integrate their local information with the related global" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 446, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 446, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 446, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "contexts for the better encoding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first propagate message among the standard first-order graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with relational graph convolutional network (RGCN) (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). We apply TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) as the initialization of the embedding for each node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The embedding of each node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", i.e., entity, can be updated as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 507, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 507, + 525, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 507, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "v _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(\\mathrm {U} ^ {l} v _ {i} ^ {l} + \\sum_ {k \\in R} \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in N _ {i} ^ {k}} \\left(\\frac {1}{\\left| N _ {i} ^ {k} \\right|} \\mathrm {U} _ {k} ^ {l} v _ {j} ^ {l}\\right)\\right), \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "f0d5e0264bc23307d7c24b84348d9b994cba1e8d77617e81167f6dbb1ed8090c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the embedding of the node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{i}^{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the set of neighbors of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " under relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{U}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the trainable parameter at layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{U}_{k}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is relation specific weighted parameter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further model the global contexts in the converted second-order graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Different from the first-order graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the nodes and edges in second-order graph represent relations and entity types respectively. We pass messages among the neighbors of the node, i.e., relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", via different entity types in graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then the information among multiple entity types of relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be summarized. Here the initialization of the embedding for each relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is also obtained by the TransE model. The embedding of each node, i.e., relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", is integrated by the deep representations of its" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9026" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 129, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 129, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 129, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "neighbors as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 89, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 89, + 290, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 89, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "r _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(\\mathrm {O} ^ {l} r _ {i} ^ {l} + \\sum_ {t \\in T} \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in N _ {i} ^ {t}} \\left(\\frac {1}{\\left| N _ {i} ^ {t} \\right|} \\mathrm {O} _ {t} ^ {l} r _ {j} ^ {l}\\right)\\right), \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "897bb0e2789e906330c40d78b5ab502e1454f7d27995c782b448a6a495c94bf8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the embedding of the relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_i^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the set of neighbors of relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " under the entity type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t \\in T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|N_i^t|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of neighbors of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{O}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the trainable parameter at layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". And ReLU is the activation function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The high-order heterogeneous graph modeling provides deep representations for the entities and relations. Therefore, complicated relation information can be well preserved for the involved entities in the modeling of Section 3.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 283, + 299 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 283, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 283, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Spans Representation with Transformer Encoder" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After modeling the high-order heterogeneous graph extracted from the medical knowledge graph, we then model the local contexts in the medical text. The medical text is organized here as tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = (x_0, x_1, \\dots, x_i, \\dots, x_{n-1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and a successive sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_{s_i}, \\dots, x_{e_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in text is a span which means an entity mention for medical text. Each span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is modeled as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 419, + 290, + 434 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 419, + 290, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 419, + 290, + 434 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s _ {i} = g _ {s} \\left(\\left[ x _ {s _ {i}}, x _ {e _ {i}}, \\hat {x} _ {i}, \\phi (s _ {i}) \\right]\\right), \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "cdcc1cf479032dc46bcd1e86264d32c2e1569ec47d1b5abcce4371c4d626c16a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the token level embedding from the transformer encoder, e.g., BERT, of the start of span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{e_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the token level embedding of the end of span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{x}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an attention-weighted sum of the token representations in the span. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi(s_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a feature vector modeling the length of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a feed-forward neural network (Lee et al., 2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 290, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then a span-based GCN is applied on the graph with spans as nodes and relations between spans as edges:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 592, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 592, + 290, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 592, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h _ {i} ^ {l + 1} = h _ {i} ^ {l} + f _ {s p a n} ^ {l} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(f _ {s} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right), f _ {s ^ {\\prime}} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right)\\right)\\right), \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "c746021188e16de66f646e1495542c2fedb2bdcafcc052ceef861cb989aefce9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 88, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 88, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 88, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 631, + 276, + 661 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 631, + 276, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 631, + 276, + 661 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f_{s}^{l}(h_{i}^{l}) = \\sum_{s_{j}\\in s_{set},j\\neq i}\\sum_{k\\in R}r_{ij}[k](W_{k}h_{j}^{l} + b_{k}),", + "image_path": "7af7021b1dc907230f4e081cf49a64f8731932203ba529186591773f1fdb4470.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 664, + 290, + 694 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 664, + 290, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 664, + 290, + 694 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {s ^ {\\prime}} ^ {l} \\left(h _ {i} ^ {l}\\right) = \\sum_ {s _ {j} \\in s _ {\\text {s e t}}, j \\neq i} \\sum_ {k \\in R} r _ {j i} [ k ] \\left(W _ {k} ^ {\\prime} h _ {j} ^ {l} + b _ {k} ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "f3d623666efe3f6e9c22e551cfe51e560e6d26252cd4c7c764da29a459bb8724.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 697, + 274, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 697, + 274, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 697, + 274, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "r _ {i j} [ k ] = S o f t m a x (f _ {r} ([ s _ {i}, s _ {j}, s _ {i} \\circ s _ {j} ])) [ k ],", + "image_path": "5c9792f0318f710fc2b396ef47b8e63aa6fd0a2de3dfbb830bc6840945d979ce.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i^{l+1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the deep representation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at the layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l+1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{span}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are feedforward neural networks. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_s^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{s'}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are bidirectional GCN (Marchegiani and Titov, 2017; Fu et al., 2019) for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_{ij}[k]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "measures the relation score for relation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between spans of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\circ" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the element-wise multiplication. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i^0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is initialized as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 493, + 149 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 493, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 493, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Knowledge Graph Enhanced Span Representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After applying span-based GCN, we obtain the hidden representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " derived from local context, e.g., the medical text. Then we apply an attention mechanism (Lai et al., 2021) to integrate the deep representation of hidden representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the local medical text with the deep representation of entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the global contexts in the first-order graph as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{i_e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 273, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 273, + 525, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 273, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {i _ {e}} = W _ {i _ {e}} f _ {c _ {e}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {e}}\\right)} W _ {i j _ {e}} f _ {v} \\left(v _ {j}\\right), \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "6e72498c92c92e18683ac47456956a66fb9e8d36d3dd98ddf6730e858da38637.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C(s_{i_e})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the candidate set of entities corresponding to span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the dual heterogeneous graph. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{c_e}(h_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_v(v_j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the transformed representation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by two feedforward neural networks. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{i_e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{ij_e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are attention scores of the two transformed representations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 405, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 405, + 525, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 405, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "W _ {i _ {e}} = \\frac {\\exp (\\alpha_ {i _ {e}})}{(\\exp (\\alpha_ {i _ {e}}) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C (s _ {i})} \\exp (\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}))}, \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "60462fc6bd4ed0828f4db450e4ea0ed40679c06ee75c02c56578f8e738b9dce7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 447, + 322, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 447, + 322, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 447, + 322, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 467, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 467, + 525, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 467, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "W _ {i j _ {e}} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\\right)}{\\left(\\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i _ {e}}\\right) + \\sum_ {v _ {j} \\in C (s _ {i})} \\exp \\left(\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}}\\right)\\right)}. \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "8ce84fd8a98061388bf01829238acd8f3f6eadb75551f66ac274e8dc255d060b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{ij_e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{i_e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are importance scores of the transformed entity representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the transformed span representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the span representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 576, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 576, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 576, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_ {i j _ {e}} = f _ {\\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {v} (v _ {j}) ]), \\tag {11}", + "image_path": "2813bb3f82162351978f623d13d5e9cb5d81f0dd65681ab83e267a17bf6a260b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 322, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 322, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 322, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 616, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 616, + 525, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 616, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_ {i _ {e}} = f _ {\\alpha_ {e}} ([ h _ {i}, f _ {c _ {e}} (h _ {i}) ]), \\tag {12}", + "image_path": "2cb75fedce99f69872b9d2240e25b5b32109172fa442c1505c79ac8ef0b990ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 495, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 495, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 495, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 495, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{\\alpha_e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 495, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a feedforward neural network." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, we fuse the deep representations of relations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the global contexts in the second-order graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the deep representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the local medical text. Distinguished from first-order graph fusion in equation 8, we argue that the corresponding relations in second-order graph may be irrelevant to the span depending on current medical text, and arouse disproportionate or even noisy aggregating representations for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9027" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "local context. Therefore, a selective gate mechanism (Li et al., 2020) is utilized to perform this fusion as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 113 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{i_r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 122, + 290, + 153 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 122, + 290, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 122, + 290, + 153 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {i _ {r}} = g _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {r}}\\right)} g _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), \\tag {13}", + "image_path": "746e2e177731ac6c8075cecef6c218bf3be75e74a754f59e8d3dea3e30f29577.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C(s_{i_r})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the candidate set of relations in the second-order heterogeneous graph for the span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To be detailed, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C(s_{i_r})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a subset of relations from knowledge graph triplets where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " holds as head or tail entity. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{c_r}(h_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_r(r_j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the transformed representation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by two feedforward neural networks. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{i_r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{ij_r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are gate scores of the two transformed representations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 284, + 290, + 299 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 284, + 290, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 284, + 290, + 299 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "g _ {i _ {r}} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {1} \\left[ f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right), h _ {i} \\right] + b _ {1}\\right) + b _ {2}\\right), \\right. \\tag {14}", + "image_path": "a23ea2d5b34052ba809ac5ea5cd542e5fac0e37f4125d2d3a0b3a8a5309e317b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 88, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 88, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 88, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 334, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 334, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 334, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "g _ {i j _ {r}} = \\sigma \\left(W _ {2} \\left(\\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {1} \\left[ f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), h _ {i} \\right] + b _ {1}\\right) + b _ {2}\\right), \\right. \\tag {15}", + "image_path": "095f70aae226bf2894b214c1b2b3a08d707268a203ba7e346ac7864588243f16.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 289, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the Sigmoid activate function which maps the results into the interval of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(0,1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, the fused representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be modeled as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 427, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 427, + 289, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 427, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {i} = \\left(W _ {\\text {s u m} _ {e}} f _ {i _ {e}} + W _ {\\text {s u m} _ {r}} f _ {i _ {r}}\\right) | | h _ {i}, \\tag {16}", + "image_path": "a0a336aeacbc9a51265751b9d890821e0accac2cbd659bd922a76d7d70a8aa79.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which means an integration of deep representation among entities, relations and the span. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{sum_e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{sum_r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " serve as feedforward neural networks. || means concatenation operation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 289, + 529 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 289, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 289, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Collective Entity and Relation Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 289, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we map the integrated representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the entity type space as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 573, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 573, + 290, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 573, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "e _ {i} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(g _ {e} \\left(f _ {i}\\right)\\right), \\tag {17}", + "image_path": "8c88e217494314c8ae2e58a020aa883e05bad4eeb380c9e83c1392b255eed7be.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 289, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 289, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 289, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 289, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 289, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a feed-forward neural network to map " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 289, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 289, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the entity space." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 289, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similarly, the relation between span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be mapped to the relation type space as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 665, + 290, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 665, + 290, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 665, + 290, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "r _ {i j} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(g _ {r} \\left(f _ {i}, f _ {j}\\right)\\right), \\tag {18}", + "image_path": "61468d94488ae085a4aec38523e3ef47715792eedd02b3f22405aa10e8095f20.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a feed-forward neural network to map " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the relation space." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 289, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 289, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 289, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The training of collectively extracting entity and relation can be optimized by minimizing the loss function as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 760, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 760, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 760, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {e} + \\mathcal {L} _ {r}, \\tag {19}", + "image_path": "4c7bb6026dba78e741dfba87d30fcf52ccbc196f10e59f881f5065cd0182c8a9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the cross-entropy loss of entities, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the cross-entropy loss of relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Different from the pipeline way that optimizes entities and relations in separate steps, our method conducts the optimization in an end-to-end mode. In this way, the errors of extracting entities and relations can be reduced collectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 390, + 205 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 390, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 390, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we evaluate our model with extensive experiments. We first show the experimental setup, which contains datasets, baselines for comparison, and evaluation metrics. Then we evaluate the effectiveness of our model and baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 424, + 305 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 424, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 424, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 379, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 379, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 379, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 525, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our method on several real medical datasets with one medical knowledge graph dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chinese Medical Text datasets: We evaluate our model on three Chinese medical text datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 33, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The first medical text dataset is the CHIP2020 dataset1, which contains 17,924 sentences from biomedical Chinese text that captures relations between medical entities (Guan et al., 2020). The dataset includes a pediatric labeled corpus for hundreds of common diseases. The training and testing splits contain 14,339 and 3,585 sentences, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The next medical dataset is the CHIP-2022 dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ,which contains 1000 samples and is split into 850/150 for training and testing set, respectively. CHIP2022 aims to extract casual, entailment and conditional relations between entities whose type are not distinguished. In the experiments, we merely trace out the previous two types of relations for joint extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The third medical text dataset is the DiaKG dataset3, which contains sentences from diabetes text that reflects relations between medical entities (Chang et al., 2021). The dataset comes from 41 diabetes guidelines and consensuses from authoritative journals in China. The diabetes text contains 22,050 entities and 6,890 relationships. Finally, the prepossessed training and testing splits contain 1,170 and 239 sentences, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 729, + 476, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 729, + 476, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 729, + 476, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1http://cips-chip.org.cn/2020/eval2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 740, + 476, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 740, + 476, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 740, + 476, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2http://cips-chip.org.cn/2022/eval2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 751, + 478, + 771 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 751, + 478, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 751, + 478, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://tianchi.aliyun.com/dataset/taDetail?dataId=88836" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9028" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 86, + 68, + 508, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 68, + 508, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 68, + 508, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 68, + 508, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelCHIP-2020CHIP-2022DIAKG
EntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverallEntityRelationOverall
PFN (Yan et al., 2021)72.252.762.559.342.050.763.044.553.8
CASREL (Wei et al., 2020)66.149.557.856.539.147.850.431.040.7
SPERT (Eberts and Ulges, 2020)73.550.161.857.838.748.365.529.147.3
KB-graph (Verlinden et al., 2021)73.961.867.965.032.548.869.351.160.2
KECI (Lai et al., 2021)74.361.167.763.432.648.072.655.163.8
KECI_nconv (Li et al., 2017)74.261.768.063.532.448.073.254.163.7
KECI_gea (Huang et al., 2020)75.661.068.361.832.547.273.154.964.0
KECI gn (Battaglia et al., 2018)74.760.567.664.032.448.273.954.564.2
Our Model76.561.869.266.732.549.674.254.464.3
", + "image_path": "e074976af4f7af89930682ba0f6c5143130bd61546e5418507b62c8862534aa9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 169, + 459, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 169, + 459, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 169, + 459, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Evaluation results (%) on CHIP-2020 & CHIP-2022 & DiaKG datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chinese Medical knowledge graph dataset: We extract Chinese medical triplets from the public knowledge graph dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 310 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which contains disease-related entities and disease-related triples. After preprocessing, we obtain 215,745 triplets for the medical knowledge graph. These triplets contain 16,735 entities and 13 relations, and the amount of entity types is 9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 221, + 331 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 221, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 221, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.2 Baselines for comparison" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare our model with state-of-the-art joint extraction methods, variant versions of knowledge-enhanced baseline included." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 290, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- PFN (Partition Filter Network) is an advanced joint extraction method that does not utilize a knowledge graph. It segments the encoder into entity extraction and relation extraction parts, and accomplishes NER-specific and relation-specific tasks with shared part separately (Yan et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- CASREL (Cascade Binary Tagging Framework for Relational Triple Extraction) is an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph enhancement. It models triplets extraction into head entity extraction as well as relation and tail entity extraction with fused head entity representation. The two parts share the same encoder for a joint extraction task (Wei et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SPERT (Span-based Joint Entity and Relation Extraction with Transformer Pre-training) is also an advanced joint extraction method without knowledge graph context. It attaches entity labels for spans derived from the text, and traversed span pairs for relation judgement (Eberts and Ulges, 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 291, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 291, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 291, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- KB-graph is an advanced joint extraction method, which injects medical knowledge into entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution simultaneously (Verlinden et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- KECI (Knowledge-Enhanced Collective Inference) is an advanced joint extraction method, which extracts entity and relation collectively with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 202, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 202, + 526, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 202, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "knowledge-enhanced collective inference. It utilizes RGCN algorithm for knowledge graph representation (Lai et al., 2021). Compared with the proposed method, KECI merely models the first-order graph for knowledge fusion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- KECI_nnconv is the variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) in which the NNConv (Gilmer et al., 2017) is utilized instead of RGCN. Different from RGCN, NNConv fuses the initial edge feature for message propagation and further enhances the node representation, which is similar to GEANet." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 525, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 525, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 525, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- KECI_gea is one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) that the RGCN part is replaced by GEANet (Huang et al., 2020) which is similar to NNCONV." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- KECI_gn is also one variant version of KECI (Lai et al., 2021) where the node and edge features are simultaneously derived from the graph net (GN) framework (Battaglia et al., 2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 428, + 481 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 428, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 428, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.3 Evaluation metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 525, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate methods by Micro-F1 scores for entity and relation extraction. Also, we use the average Micro-F1 scores of entities and their relations in each medical text as the overall scores for each medical text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 448, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 448, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 448, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.4 Implementation details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implement our method with PyTorch and MedBERT-kd Transformer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is based on the structure of BERT and trained on a mount of Chinese clinic texts. The number of parameters of our model is 135,557,734. We conduct hyperparameter tuning by using a Bayesian optimizer for all the methods on real datasets. The scopes of hyper-parameters are: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{16,32\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for batch size, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{2e-5,3e-5,4e-5,5e-5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for lower learning rate, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1e-4,2e-4,5e-4\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 579, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for upper learning rate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 525, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A coarse-to-fine training process is applied during training process. Firstly, we leave out the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 249, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 249, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 249, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4http://www.openkg.cn/dataset/medical" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 456, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 456, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 456, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 456, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://huggingface.co/trueto/medbert-kd-chinese" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9029" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 243, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 243, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 243, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 73, + 243, + 184 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "32fee73595c2bb5482164e7fb41f0baba7edbb0c09b60a0eb8d1ecd7e195c926.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 196, + 516, + 210 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 196, + 516, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 196, + 516, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The ablation study results w.r.t. overall Micro-F1 scores on CHIP-2020/CHIP2022/DiaKG datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 248, + 73, + 380, + 183 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 73, + 380, + 183 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 73, + 380, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 73, + 380, + 183 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f5afe7aed439cc5d074e1cb4f2d8169c6fbb5efd1b3f6a16966397cef32dbf04.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 384, + 73, + 521, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 73, + 521, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 73, + 521, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 73, + 521, + 184 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e2fba9cef4ee6ac444b360b37757d640368f6486346f71ca525601df00001f02.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 290, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 290, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 290, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "knowledge graph fusion part and only employ hidden representations of spans from the local context to train a better downstream task-specific BERT structure. After that, global information from knowledge graph representation is added for a precise training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 291, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 291, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 291, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate all models with GPUs on the JIUTIAN Platform of China Mobile Research Institute." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 180, + 361 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 180, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 180, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Evaluation results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the effectiveness of all methods on three real datasets in Table 1, where we show the Micro-F1 values of both entities and relations. We also show the averaged overall Micro-F1 values. From Table 1, we make the following observations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) KECI outperforms other joint extraction methods which do not involve medical knowledge graph. For example, KECI has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "23.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvements compared with CASREL on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that the medical knowledge graph is essential for providing more contexts in joint entity and relation extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) Our model works better than KECI in overall values. Specifically, our model achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvements compared with the KECI model on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It verifies that high-order graph context could provide more information for text modeling. Moreover, before adding relation context, as shown in Table 1, the Micro-F1 score of the entity for KECI is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "74.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on CHIP-2020 dataset, while our method uses relation context and Micro-F1 is increased to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "76.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". On average, there are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvements on the three datasets respectively after adding relation contexts. It can be seen that the relation context does have a significant effect on improving the entity value." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) Results in CHIP-2022 show that our model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "has a little poorer performance than that of PFN in overall score, however, we still prevail much in entity result. This is attributed to the fact that the relation types in CHIP-2022 dataset are all logical types, such as casual and entailment relations, which varies considerably from medical knowledge graph." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further make detailed evaluation on all the entity types which can be seen in table 2 and 3. Generally, our model achieves a higher F1 score among entity types, especially in the less-train-instance targets, e.g., \"部位(part)\", \"其他治疗(other therapy) \", \"其他(others)\" in CHIP-2020 dataset and \"Amount\", \"Method\", \"Pathogenesis\" in DiaKG dataset, our model performs almost above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " better than KECI (Lai et al., 2021). When mentioning CHIP-2022 data, we neglect the entity type results owing to its lack of discrimination between entity types." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also make comparisons between proposed high-order heterogeneous graph modeling method and some typical graph neural networks (GNN). We can conclude that the high-order graph modeling for both entity and relation update is more efficient than a single order heterogeneous graph modeling for entity representation, even with the extra relation update. Details are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) The proposed model exceeds KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively, in CHIP-2020 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) The proposed model surpasses KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 525, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively, in CHIP-2022 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) The proposed model beats KECI_nnconv, KECI_gea and KECI_gn by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively, in DiaKG dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9030" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 298, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 298, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 298, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 298, + 181 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
surgery55.7854.3055.0347.3464.9054.75
inspection65.7561.0363.3058.0772.3164.41
epidemiology60.7658.2259.4652.9273.2661.45
disease70.0484.5276.6079.9580.2480.09
symptom71.7063.1267.1468.0072.7470.29
sociology66.8346.6454.9460.1457.7958.94
medicine61.2775.6867.7266.8475.7871.03
part72.9346.4156.7260.3566.2763.17
prognosis------
other-therapy47.7033.2439.1847.6738.7842.77
others---100.005.8311.02
", + "image_path": "c3fe8e31add7d4c6a15deef6ea439ebb4d47a3fd43d33efec74e166b32c28805.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 294, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 290, + 213 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 290, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 290, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Entity evaluation details (%) on CHIP-2020 dataset. (- means the result is zero.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 294, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 294, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 294, + 361 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Entity TypeKECI(Lai et al., 2021)Our Model
PRF1PRF1
ADE68.4254.1760.4777.5552.7862.81
Amount20.0017.6518.7526.6723.5325.00
Anatomy79.3192.0085.1882.5192.0087.00
Class87.1360.6971.5586.2760.6971.25
Disease78.2277.4977.8573.4082.6077.73
Drug65.0275.2469.7666.8077.6271.80
Method---36.8450.0042.42
Pathogenesis---22.2225.0023.53
Reason30.0033.3331.58---
Symptom48.1540.6244.0752.1737.5043.63
Test43.3361.9050.9850.0066.6757.14
Test_items59.5460.9460.2353.9968.7560.48
Treatment42.8657.6949.1838.2450.0043.34
Operation------
", + "image_path": "58a827b03263acb12ff2212c2b851387a47bd52cea14e78ac87aa3b3f945303b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 394 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Entity evaluation details " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on DiaKG dataset. (- means the result is zero.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 166, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 166, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 166, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct an ablation study on our model to evaluate the effectiveness of its main modules in Figures 3. Specifically, we compare our model with the following variants w.r.t. the overall score of each medical text, i.e., average Micro-F1 score of entities and relation in each medical text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- MnoKG (Model without Knowledge Graph) ignores knowledge graph for triplets extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- MEnt (Model with Entity) merely fuses first-order graph into medical text for joint extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- MRel (Model with Relation) merely fuses second-order graph into medical text for extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- MnoGNN (Model without GNN update) fuses initial node representations of high-order graph from TransE into text without GNN to update." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 648, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 648, + 290, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 648, + 290, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- MRAtt (Model with Relation Attention fusion) is one variant version of our model, which uses an attention mechanism in Equation 20 to replace Equation 16 for relation fusion:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 709, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 709, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 709, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {i _ {r}} = W _ {i _ {r}} f _ {c _ {r}} \\left(h _ {i}\\right) + \\sum_ {r _ {j} \\in C \\left(s _ {i _ {r}}\\right)} W _ {i j _ {r}} f _ {r} \\left(r _ {j}\\right), \\tag {20}", + "image_path": "886c7ebc18661eb4a0c6b1aa572c1b5a3b75a245b0045968575ce43ac5be7cc2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{i_r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{ij_r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are similar to 9 and 10, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 96 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 96 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 96 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the Figures, we make the following observations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) Our model beats MnoKG on all real datasets. In particular, the performance improvements of our model are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " better compared with MnoKG on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It shows that using medical knowledge graph is important for providing external contexts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) Our model outperforms MEnt. For example, the overall improvements are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared with MEnt on CHIP-2020, CHIP-2022 and DiaKG datasets, respectively. It justifies that the second-order graph provides a positive feedback for the first-order representations and further enhance the encoding of entity mentions in medical text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 525, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 525, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 525, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) Our model surpasses MRel and the rate is less than that of MEnt. It seems the second-order graph plays a major role in dual heterogeneous graph for joint extraction task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(4) Our model precedes MnoGNN. Specifically, the exceeding values are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the datasets. It shows that the GNN update part is vital for a better knowledge graph information fusion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(5) The MEnt model only added the first-order graph, and the MRel only added the second-order graph. It can be seen from the data that the effect of MRel is better than that of MEnt. Second-order graph can improve entity extraction even more effectively, because it acts directly on the entity span." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(6) Our model performs better than MRAtt. To be specific, the overall improvement of our model is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.5\\% / 1.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared with MRAtt on CHIP-2020/CHIP-2022 datasets and the result is comparable to that of MRAtt on DiaKG dataset. It means that the selective gate mechanism can improve the performance for relation fusion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 387, + 628 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 387, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 387, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we study the problem of the joint entity and relation extraction in the medical text. We propose to construct the high-order heterogeneous graph from the medical knowledge graph, and learn the entity span representations in a knowledge-enhanced which integrates the deep representations from both global and local contexts. The extraction of entities and relations is in a collective way. The experimental results show that our model is more effective than state-of-the-art methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9031" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 290, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We inject the medical knowledge graph into local texts for entity span representations enhancement. However, unlike most joint extraction methods, the proposed model is hard to be trained in a parallel way. Therefore, it is time-consuming to obtain a well-trained model. We would like to optimize the architecture of the model in the future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 187, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 187, + 290, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 187, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moreover, our model is adapted to Chinese medical texts where a token usually means a character (not a word). Hence, there will be errors when aligning the entities from the knowledge graph with mentions from local texts. Word segmentation task will be considered in our future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 279, + 170, + 292 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 279, + 170, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 279, + 170, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work is supported by China Mobile Holistic Artificial Intelligence Major Project Funding (R22105ZS, R22105ZSC01) and National Key R&D Program of China (2021ZD0140408)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 376, + 127, + 389 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 376, + 127, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 376, + 127, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 395, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 395, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 395, + 291, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 395, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gülcehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charlie Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Manfred Otto Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. ArXiv, abs/1806.01261." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 290, + 580 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 290, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 290, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Giannis Bekoulis, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2018. Adversarial training for multi-context joint entity and relation extraction. In EMNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 291, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dejie Chang, Mosha Chen, Chaozhen Liu, Liping Liu, Dongdong Li, Wei Li, Fei Kong, Bangchang Liu, Xiaobin Luo, Ji Qi, et al. 2021. Diakg: An annotated diabetes dataset for medical knowledge graph construction. In China Conference on Knowledge Graph and Semantic Computing, pages 308-314. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Markus Eberts and Adrian Ulges. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with transformer pre-training. In *ECAI* 2020, pages 2006-2013. IOS Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tsu-Jui Fu, Peng-Hsuan Li, and Wei-Yun Ma. 2019. Graphrel: Modeling text as relational graphs for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1409-1418." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 135, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 135, + 526, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 135, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E. Dahl. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1263-1272." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 526, + 276 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 526, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 526, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "T. Guan, H. Zan, X. Zhou, H. Xu, and K Zhang. 2020. CMeIE: Construction and Evaluation of Chinese Medical Information Extraction Dataset. Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, 9th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part I." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 526, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kung-Hsiang Huang, Mu Yang, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. Biomedical event extraction with hierarchical knowledge graphs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1277-1285, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 357, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 357, + 525, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 357, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bin Ji, Jie Yu, Shasha Li, Jun Ma, Qingbo Wu, Yusong Tan, and Huijun Liu. 2020. Span-based joint entity and relation extraction with attention-based span-specific and contextual semantic representations. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 88-99." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 431, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 431, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 431, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaodong Jiang, Ronghang Zhu, Sheng Li, and Pengsheng Ji. 2020. Co-embedding of nodes and edges with graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 483, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 483, + 525, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 483, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tuan Lai, Heng Ji, ChengXiang Zhai, and Quan Hung Tran. 2021. Joint biomedical entity and relation extraction with knowledge-enhanced collective inference. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6248-6260, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 590, + 525, + 646 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 590, + 525, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 590, + 525, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188-197." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei Li, Meishan Zhang, Guohong Fu, and Donghong Ji. 2017. A neural joint model for entity and relation extraction from biomedical text. BMC bioinformatics, 18(1):1-11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang Li, Guodong Long, Tao Shen, Tianyi Zhou, Lina Yao, Huan Huo, and Jing Jiang. 2020. Self-attention enhanced selective gate with entity-aware embedding for distantly supervised relation extraction. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8269-8276." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9032" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7999-8009." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 136, + 289, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 136, + 289, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 136, + 289, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Luan, Luheng He, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018. Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreference for scientific knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3219-3232." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 210, + 289, + 264 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 210, + 289, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 210, + 289, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Luan, Dave Wadden, Luheng He, Amy Shah, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. A general framework for information extraction using dynamic span graphs. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 3036-3046." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 289, + 328 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 289, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 289, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ling Luo, Zhihao Yang, Mingyu Cao, Lei Wang, Yin Zhang, and Hongfei Lin. 2020. A neural network-based joint learning approach for biomedical entity and relation extraction from biomedical literature. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 103:103384." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diego Marcheggiani and Ivan Titov. 2017. Encoding sentences with graph convolutional networks for semantic role labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04826." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 389, + 289, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 389, + 289, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 389, + 289, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yali Pang, Tong Zhou, and Zhichang Zhang. 2021. A joint model for chinese medical entity and relation extraction based on graph convolutional networks. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICNLP), pages 119-124. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 453, + 289, + 508 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 453, + 289, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 453, + 289, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In European semantic web conference, pages 593-607. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 516, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 516, + 289, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 516, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yong Shang, Yu Tian, Min Zhou, Tianshu Zhou, Kewei Lyu, Zhixiao Wang, Ran Xin, Tingbo Liang, Shiqiang Zhu, and Jingsong Li. 2021. Ehr-oriented knowledge graph system: Toward efficient utilization of non-used information buried in routine clinical practice. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25(7):2463-2475." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 601, + 289, + 656 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 601, + 289, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 601, + 289, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Severine Verlinden, Klim Zaporojets, Johannes Deleu, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2021. Injecting knowledge base information into end-to-end joint entity and relation extraction and coreference resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02286." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jue Wang and Wei Lu. 2020. Two are better than one: Joint entity and relation extraction with table-sequence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1706-1721." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Wang, Yue Zhang, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2018. Joint extraction of entities and relations based on a novel graph scheme. In *IJCAI*, pages 4461-4467. Yokohama." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 426 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhepei Wei, Jianlin Su, Yue Wang, Yuan Tian, and Yi Chang. 2020. A novel cascade binary tagging framework for relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1476-1488." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kui Xue, Yangming Zhou, Zhiyuan Ma, Tong Ruan, Huanhuan Zhang, and Ping He. 2019. Fine-tuning bert for joint entity and relation extraction in chinese medical text. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 892-897. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiheng Yan, Chong Zhang, Jinlan Fu, Qi Zhang, and Zhongyu Wei. 2021. A partition filter network for joint entity and relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 185-197, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 307, + 524, + 373 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 307, + 524, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 307, + 524, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shan Zhao, Minghao Hu, Zhiping Cai, and Fang Liu. 2021. Modeling dense cross-modal interactions for joint entity-relation extraction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4032-4038." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 382, + 524, + 426 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 382, + 524, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 382, + 524, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. 2021. A frustratingly easy approach for entity and relation extraction. In North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9033" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 456, + 243 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 330, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 330, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 330, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? the \"Limitations\" section which is next to the section 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 330, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 330, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 330, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? the \"Limitations\" section which is next to the section 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 456, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 456, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 456, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? the 1st section (introduction) and the \"abstract\" section which is ahead of section 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 291, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 183, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 183, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 183, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "section 4 (experiments)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? section 4.1.4 (Implementation details)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9034" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 258, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 258, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 99, + 258, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "section 4.1.4 (Implementation details)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 121, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 121, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 121, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 291, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 291, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 162, + 291, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the results are stable without large error bars" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 184, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 130, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 130, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 225, + 130, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "not used" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 247, + 522, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 247, + 522, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 247, + 522, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 378, + 148, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 441, + 148, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 521, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 521, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 521, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 477, + 148, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 527, + 148, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9035" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_content_list.json b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aecb6db9f7eba01aebc6e081c266ec20c050596b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1741 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 176, + 90, + 821, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wangchunshu Zhou*† Qifei Li* Chenle Li", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 154, + 702, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Beihang University, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 357, + 172, + 643, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "zhouwangchunshu@buaa.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 337, + 189, + 665, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Personalizing dialogue agents is important for dialogue systems to generate more specific, consistent, and engaging responses. However, most current dialogue personalization approaches rely on explicit persona descriptions during inference, which severely restricts its application. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that learns to predict persona information based on the dialogue history to personalize the dialogue agent without relying on any explicit persona descriptions during inference. Experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed method can improve the consistency of generated responses when conditioning on the predicted profile of the dialogue agent (i.e. \"self persona\"), and improve the engagingness of the generated responses when conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner (i.e. \"their persona\"). We also find that a trained persona prediction model can be successfully transferred to other datasets and help generate more relevant responses.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 279, + 460, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 618, + 258, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, end-to-end dialogue response generation models (Sordoni et al., 2015; Serban et al., 2016; Bordes et al., 2017) based on recent advances of neural sequence-to-sequence learning models (Sutskever et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) have gained increasing popularity as they can generate fluent responses. However, as the dialogue agent is trained with datasets containing dialogues from many different speakers, it can not generate personalized responses for the current speaker, making the generated responses less relevant and engaging (Li et al., 2016b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 643, + 485, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address this problem, recent studies attempt to personalize dialogue systems by generating dialogue responses conditioning on given persona", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 837, + 485, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "descriptions have been shown to help dialogue agents perform better (Zhang et al., 2018; Mazaré et al., 2018). However, a major drawback of the current dialogue agent personalization approaches is that they require explicit persona descriptions in both training and inference stages, which severely limits their application in real-world scenarios because detailed persona descriptions for current speakers are not available in most scenarios. Another problem is that current dialogue personalization approaches are not interpretable and the role of additional persona information is unclear.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 882, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a novel dialogue agent personalization approach that automatically infers the speaker's persona based on the dialogue history which implicitly contains persona information. Our model generates personalized dialogue responses based on the dialogue history and the inferred speaker persona, alleviating the necessity of the persona description during inference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 448, + 882, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we propose two different approaches to perform persona detection. The first approach learns a \"persona approximator\" which takes dialogue history as the input and is trained to approximate the output representation of a persona encoder that takes explicit persona description as the input. The second approach instead addresses the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and learns a \"persona generator\" which takes the dialogue history as the input and generates the persona description of the speaker. This approach provides a stronger supervision signal compared with the first approach and is more interpretable as the encoded persona information can be decoded to reconstruct the detected persona description.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 579, + 880, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our proposed approach can be used to incorporate both \"self-persona\" which is the persona information of the dialogue agent, and \"their-persona\" which is the persona information of the dialogue partner. On one hand, generating dia", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Equal contribution.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 892, + 272, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Corresponding author", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 904, + 285, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2979", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 2979-2991", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 766, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4cb8c5a697eb16fd6e2330f0c1251ea94b1192dd8c1babad772170fc5a832944.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) persona approximator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 131, + 95, + 500, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ac75d05ad800e06da4eeffed2544e73818a095ba90f740ef39296110159c1612.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) persona denoising-autoencoder", + "Figure 1: Illustration of the proposed persona detection models. The persona approximator is on the left. It is trained to maximize the embedding similarity between persona embedding approximated by the persona approximator and the persona encoder, which is obtained by taking dialogue history and persona description respectively. The persona generator is on the right, which is trained to recover persona description from the dialogue history, thus can also be viewed as a \"persona denosing-autoencoder\"." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 101, + 890, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "logue responses conditioning on the inferred \"self-persona\" can help the dialogue agent maintain a consistent persona during the conversation, thus enhancing the consistency of generated responses without the need of a pre-defined persona description for every dialogue agent. On the other hand, generating dialogue responses conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner helps the dialogue model generate more engaging responses that are relevant to its dialogue partner. The ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is particularly attractive because in many real-world application scenarios, the persona information of the user is hardly available before the dialogue starts. In addition, to facilitate training and tackle the problem of lacking training data, we propose to train the persona detection model with multi-task learning by sharing layers and training jointly with the dialogue context encoder in both approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 354, + 485, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our experiments on dialogue datasets with and without the persona description demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach and show that a trained persona detection model can be successfully transferred to datasets without persona description.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 485, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 268, + 807 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Preliminary study on dialogue personalization (Li et al., 2016b) attempts to use a persona-based neural conversation model to capture individual characteristics such as background information and speaking style. However, it requires the current speaker during inference to have sufficient dia", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "logue utterances included in the training set, which is quite restricted by the cold-start problem.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 354, + 880, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "More recently, Zhang et al. (2018) released the PersonaChat dataset which incorporates persona of two speakers represented as multiple sentences of profile description to personalize dialogue agents. They propose a profile memory network by considering the dialogue history as input and then performing attention over the persona to be combined with the dialogue history. Mazaré et al. (2018) proposed to train a persona encoder and combine the encoded persona embedding with context representation by concatenation. The combined representation is then fed into the dialogue decoder to generate personalized responses. (Yavuz et al., 2019) designed the DeepCopy model, which leverages copy mechanism to incorporate persona texts and Madotto et al. (2019) propose to use meta-learning to adapt to the current speaker quickly, their approach also requires several dialogues of the speaker to perform dialogue personalization, which is different from our approach. Welleck et al. (2019) propose a dialogue natural language inference dataset and use it to measure and improve the consistency of the dialogue system. More recently, Zheng et al. (2019) propose personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. Song et al. (2020) introduce a multi-stage response generation stage to improve the personalization of generated responses. Wu et al. (2020) propose a variational response generator to better exploit persona information. Different from the aforementioned works, our approach does not require persona information during test time, which makes it more generally applicable.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2980", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Concurrently, Ma et al. (2021) propose to infer implicit persona base on dialogue histories.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 143, + 263, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The motivation behind the proposed approach is that we can learn to detect the profile (i.e., persona) of dialogue speakers based on the dialogue history, which is demonstrated by experimental results in Zhang et al. (2018) that we can train a model to effectively distinguish the corresponding persona from randomly sampled negative persona based on the dialogue history.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 181, + 487, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The key idea is to jointly train a persona detection model with a conventional dialogue response generation model. The persona detection model is trained with persona description to infer the persona information based on the dialogue history, which provides persona information for the dialogue model, thus alleviating the necessity of provided persona information during test time. We propose two different persona detection models. The first model is a \"persona approximator\" and the second is a \"persona generator\". An overview of the proposed models is illustrated in Figure 1. We describe them in detail in this section, together with a multi-task learning objective which facilitates the training stage of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 315, + 487, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Task Definition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 583, + 280, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a dialogue dataset $\\mathcal{D}$ with personas, an example of the dataset can be represented as a triplet $(h,p,r)$ . Specifically, $h = \\{u_1,u_2,\\dots,u_{nh}\\}$ , which represents the dialogue history with $nh$ utterances. $p = \\{p_1,p_2,\\dots,p_{np}\\}$ , which represents a persona with $np$ profile sentences. $r$ represents the ground-truth response. Existing personalized dialogue models learn a dialogue response generation model $G$ which takes $h$ and $p$ as input during inference and generates a personalized response $G(h,p)$ . Our goal is to learn a persona detection model $D$ which enables the dialogue model to generate personalized response $G(h,D(h))$ without relying on given persona description $p$ during test time. In this way, the persona description in the dataset is used to train the personalized dialogue agent and after training, our model should be able to generate personalized dialogue responses without relying on persona description.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 613, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Persona Approximator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 737, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The idea of persona approximator is that given a trained personalized dialogue model with persona encoder which takes the persona description as input and outputs the persona embedding, we can train a persona approximator which takes the dialogue history as input and learns to output a persona embedding which is similar with that encoded by the trained persona encoder. Persona embedding approximation is possible as dialogue history is shown to be sufficient for discriminating the corresponding persona (Zhang et al., 2018).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 107, + 882, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, given dialogue history $h$ and persona description $p$ , the persona encoder $E$ takes $p$ as input and outputs persona embedding $emb(p) = E(p)$ . The proposed persona approximator $A$ takes $h$ as input and outputs the approximated persona embedding $a = A(h)$ . The training objective of $A$ is to optimize the embedding similarity (e.g. cosine similarity) between $a$ and $emb(p)$ . At the same time, we minimize the cosine similarity between $a$ and the embedding of a randomly sampled persona embedding of another user, which serves as a negative example.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 285, + 884, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We discuss several pros and cons of the proposed persona approximator here. The advantage of this approach is that it alleviates the requirement of persona description during training and can incorporate several off-the-shelf personalized dialogue models with persona encoder seamlessly. However, as the persona encoder itself is far from perfect and non-interpretable, a persona approximator which is trained to approximate the persona encoder may also be sub-optimal and even less interpretable. Another issue is that the persona approximator can only be trained after training the dialogue model and persona encoder. To alleviate this problem and train an interpretable persona detection model more effectively, we propose another persona detection model which is named \"persona generator\".", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 480, + 882, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Persona Generator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 768, + 705, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As dialogue history can be used to predict the corresponding persona, which is demonstrated by Zhang et al. (2018), we hypothesize that dialogue history implicitly contains the persona of dialogue partners. Therefore, we argue that a good persona detection model should be able to reconstruct the dialogue partners' persona descriptions based on the dialogue history. Based on this in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2981", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sight, we propose a \"persona generator\" model which formulates the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and train the persona generator to recover the textual persona description of dialogue partners from the dialogue history.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, the persona generator receives the dialogue history $h$ as input and is trained to generate the persona description $p$ , which is a sequence of tokens $p_i$ of length $n$ . The persona generator is trained by maximizing the likelihood of the ground-truth persona descriptions:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 181, + 485, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathrm {L} _ {p g} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\log P \\left(p _ {i} \\mid p _ {< i}, h\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 288, + 485, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As illustrated in Figure 1(b), the persona generator consists of a persona encoder and a persona decoder. During training, the persona encoder takes the dialogue history as input and outputs a persona embedding that represents the persona information of either the dialogue model or its dialogue partner. The persona embedding is then concatenated with the context embedding generated by the dialogue encoder and fed into the dialogue decoder to generate the response. In addition, the persona embedding is also fed into the persona decoder to generate the textual persona description of the dialogue partner. During inference, only the encoder of the trained persona generator will be used to provide persona information for the response generation model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 340, + 485, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While previous dialogue personalization approaches, as well as the aforementioned persona approximator, generally train the persona encoder to maximize the likelihood of gold responses with MLE and can not ensure that the persona encoder actually captures useful persona information, the persona generator is directly trained to generate persona information from dialogue history, which enforces the persona information to be successfully captured. This approach also enhances the interpretability of the dialogue personalization procedure as the persona embedding encoded from dialogue history can be decoded into persona description with the decoder of trained persona generator.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 598, + 487, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Multi-Task Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 850, + 326, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training the proposed persona detection models can be difficult because the available persona description is limited. To alleviate this problem,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "we propose to adopt multi-task learning (Argyriou et al., 2006) by training the dialogue encoder jointly with the persona detection model. This is possible because both the dialogue encoder and the persona detection model take dialogue history as input and outputs a latent vector. The difference is that the dialogue context encoder is trained to provide direct information for response generation while the persona detection model is trained to predict persona description. These two tasks both require dialogue understanding and commonsense reasoning ability, which can be shared and help each other generalize better. We thus propose to adopt the multi-task learning paradigm to facilitate training. Specifically, we share the parameter of the first layer, which can be viewed as a general-purpose dialogue information encoder, between the dialogue context encoder and the persona detection model.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 84, + 882, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we also train the persona detection model to maximize the likelihood of ground-truth responses together with the dialogue model, which ensures that the persona detection model not only encodes persona information but also helps generate more fluent dialogue responses. We control the relative importance between the original MLE objective and the training objectives of the proposed persona detection models by weighting the loss of persona detection objective with a hyperparameter $\\alpha$ which is empirically set to 0.1 in our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 391, + 882, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 655, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 616, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct our experiments on PersonaChat dataset (Zhang et al., 2018) which is a multi-turn chit-chat conversation dataset containing conversations between human annotators who are randomly assigned a \"persona\". We experiment with two settings where the models are trained either with the persona description of themselves (i.e., self persona) or with the persona description of their dialogue partner (i.e., their persona). We present an example of the dataset in the Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 645, + 882, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we also expect our approach to be able to perform personalized dialogue response generation on other datasets (application scenarios) where persona description is not available even in the training set. Therefore, we also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset (Li et al., 2017), which is a multi-turn dialogue dataset", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 807, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2982", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in a similar domain with PersonaChat but without persona description, to explore the transferability of our approach.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 142, + 312, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For automated evaluation, we employ the following metrics following previous work:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 162, + 485, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Perplexity Following Zhang et al. (2018), we use perplexity (ppl) to measure the fluency of responses. Lower perplexity means better fluency.", + "- Distinct Following (Li et al., 2016a), we calculate the token ratios of distinct bigrams (Distinct-2, abbreviated as Dst for convenience). We use this metric to measure the diversity of the responses.", + "- Hits@1 Following Zhang et al. (2018), Hit@1 measures the percentage of correct identification of a gold answer from a set of 19 distractors.", + "- Consistency We also include the Consistency score proposed by Welleck et al. (2019). It is calculated by subtracting the percentage of generated response entails or contradicts (predicted with a pretrained dialogue NLI model) the persona information.", + "- P-Cover We also include the P-Cover metric proposed by Song et al. (2019), which evaluates how well the generated responses covers the persona information." + ], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 200, + 485, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As automated metrics generally fail to correlate well with human evaluation (Liu et al., 2016; Zhou and Xu, 2020). We also systematically conduct human evaluation to further evaluate the proposed method. Specifically, we invite 20 human annotators that are all graduate students with good English proficiency to evaluate the quality of the model. Following Zhang et al. (2018), we ask human annotators to interact with compared models and evaluate the fluency, engagingness, and consistency of the model (scored between 1-5). In addition, the degree of personalization of the model is measured by the ability of human annotators to detect the model's profile after the conversation, which is measured by displaying the real persona description together with a randomly sampled persona description and asking the human annotator to select which is more likely to be the profile of the model. The persona detection metric is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "only available in PersonaChat where test persona is available.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Compared Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 127, + 702, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To explore to what extent our proposed approach is able to personalize dialogue agents, we compare two variants of our model which incorporate the persona approximator method and the persona generator method with the following baseline models:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 148, + 880, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- DialogGPT A Transformer-based dialogue response generation based on the GPT-2 architecture and pre-trained on 147M conversation-like exchanges extracted from Reddit comment chains. It has 345M parameters and fine-tuned on Personachat by prepending all persona descriptions at the beginning of the dialogue context.", + "- DialogGPT w/o persona The same Dialog-GPT model fine-tuned on Personachat dataset without using persona information during training or inference.", + "- DialogGPT+PE A transformer-based dialogue model based on pre-trained DialogGPT model and fine-tuned by training a transformer-based persona encoder to provide persona embedding information.", + "- PersonaCVAE Our re-implementation of the PersonaCVAE model (Song et al., 2019) with the pre-trained DialogGPT as the base model.", + "- GPMN Generative Profile Memory Network (Zhang et al., 2018) is an RNN-based model that encodes persona as memory representations in a memory network." + ], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 255, + 880, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Both of our models (Persona Approximator and Persona Generator) are based on pre-trained DialogGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) and fine-tuned on Personachat. The model has the same architecture with GPT-2 and has 345M parameters. Fine-tuning hyperparameters are kept the same with Zhang et al. (2020). To make the model compatible with the encoder-decoder architecture described in the method section, we consider the hidden state of the last token in the transformer model as the context embedding. For the persona encoder, we share all layers except the last layer in the multi-task setting. The RNN-based baselines are trained from scratch and we used their original", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2983", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/281a33f2dc7339013635ab656bb32e2706899071622e9875c39b0c8cb317a0d2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodSelf PersonaTheir Persona
pptDstHits@1ConsP-CoverpptDstHits@1ConsP-Cover
GPMN36.1113.554.90.15.01836.4514.851.40.10.021
DialogGPT13.6223.183.20.35.05214.0323.978.90.27.059
DialogGPT+PE13.5724.884.50.38.05513.9025.179.30.28.063
PersonaCVAE14.8325.7*84.00.37.06114.8825.678.30.24.066
DialogGPT w/o persona15.4919.672.90.13.012----
Persona Approximator14.4224.283.30.33.03814.6324.978.40.24.040
Persona Generator13.39*25.284.20.38.04913.8225.879.10.29.057
", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 80, + 870, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Performance of dialogue models on automated evaluation metrics in the PersonaChat testset. \"Self persona\" means that the model is conditioned on the persona description of itself while \"their persona\" means the model is conditioned on the persona of its dialogue partner. We report the median as 5 random runs as the result. * denote statistically significant with p-value $< {0.05}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 223, + 882, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "architecture and training methods in the original paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 307, + 485, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 350, + 329, + 366 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results on PersonaChat We first present the experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset where persona description is available during training. In this scenario, the persona detection model is trained in the same domain as the response generation model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 485, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of automated evaluation metrics are shown in Table 1. First, we can see that models explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions, including the dialogue model that incorporate a persona encoder (i.e., DialogGPT+PE) or prepend persona descriptions (i.e., DialogGPT), outperform the baseline model that does not exploit persona information by a relatively large margin in all automated metrics. Also, dialogue models with a pre-trained Transformer model (i.e., DialogGPT) substantially outperform RNN-based models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 468, + 485, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As for our proposed approaches, we find that both persona detection models substantially improve the performance upon the baseline with the pre-trained DialogGPT model without using persona information. When comparing the proposed two persona detection models, it is clear that the persona generator method performs much better than the persona approximator. Moreover, we find that it outperforms the competitive DialogGPT and DialogGPT+PE model on several automated metrics despite not using any persona information at test time. We hypothesis that it is because the persona generator is trained with the reconstruction loss, which is a useful supervision signal that is complementary to the MLE objective. In contrast, the persona encoder is trained jointly with the dialogue model by simply maximizing the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "likelihood of gold responses and may not actually capture the persona information. Our approach performs slightly worse than the best model using persona information in some metrics. However, the difference is very marginal even though our model does not take the persona information as input.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 307, + 880, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When comparing the performance of our proposed approaches trained with either \"self persona\" and \"their persona\", we can see that training the persona detection to predict the persona information of the dialogue system itself helps the model to maintain a consistent persona, thus improving the consistency of generated responses. In contrast, training the persona detection model to predict the persona of its dialogue partner helps the model to generate more diverse responses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 880, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human evaluation results are shown in Table 2. We can see that dialogue models which explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions significantly improves all human evaluation metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 580, + 880, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As for our proposed approaches, we find that both proposed persona detection models can improve the consistency, engagingness, and persona detection accuracy upon the baseline seq2seq model without sacrificing the fluency of generated responses. The persona generator performs better than the persona approximator, which is consistent with the results in the automated evaluation. In addition, the persona generator model performs comparably and even better when compared with the competitive DialogGPT baseline. This demonstrates that our proposed method can effectively personalize dialogue agents without relying on pre-defined persona descriptions at test time.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 880, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similarly, we find that when conditioning on \"self persona\" as incorporating the persona description helps dialogue agents maintain a consis", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2984", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/86a9a0af833a4ab8b77cd3458161d86762f1d66cd991e0f9a5fc467fa6e1239b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelPersonaFluencyEngagingnessConsistencyPersona Detection
DialogGPTself3.563.573.630.88
DialogGPTtheir3.493.593.470.80
DialogGPTboth3.633.693.600.88
DialogGPT+PEself3.623.493.610.87
DialogGPT+PEtheir3.573.513.520.82
DialogGPT+PEboth3.693.653.68*0.90
PersonaCVAEself3.513.553.530.85
PersonaCVAEtheir3.503.523.420.77
PersonaCVAEboth3.573.593.510.83
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.393.283.300.69
Persona Approximatorself3.453.403.350.78
Persona Approximatortheir3.363.433.270.73
Persona Generatorself3.673.613.580.89
Persona Generatortheir3.613.693.520.84
Persona Generatorboth3.72*3.74*3.630.90
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 80, + 863, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/145ddacb4e3c505025b02b05c981461cee0a330441fe363e49e350aa6c817684.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Human evaluation of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the PersonaChat dataset. * denote statistically significant with p-value $< {0.05}$ . The Fleiss’s Kappa value is 0.67 , which indicates relatively strong inter-annotator agreement." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelPerFluenEngagConsis
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.423.413.48
w/ Persona Generatorself3.533.523.58
w/ Persona Generatortheir3.483.573.56
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 413, + 485, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Performance of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the Dailydialog dataset. The Fleiss's Kappa value is 0.61, indicating relatively strong inter-annotator agreement.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 486, + 487, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tent profile throughout the conversation. Again, when conditioned on \"their persona\", the dialogue agent learns to predict the profile of its dialogue partner, which helps generate more engaging and personalized responses. Based on this motivation, we also conduct experiment with both \"their\" and \"self\" persona at the same time. We find this make significant future improvement and enabling dialogue agent to generate dialogue responses that are both engaging and consistent.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 556, + 485, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the transferability of persona detection models As persona descriptions are not available in most scenarios and datasets, we aim to enable dialogue agent personalization for dialogue models trained in datasets where no persona description is available with a persona detection model pretrained on PersonaChat. To test the transferability of trained persona detection models, we combine persona detection models pretrained on the PersonaChat dataset with dialogue systems trained on the Dailydialog dataset. The pretrained persona detection models are fine-tuned", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "jointly with the pretrained dialogue model by maximizing the likelihood of ground-truth responses. The results are shown in Table 3. We can see that transferring pre-trained persona detection models in the target dialogue domain is able to improve the performance of dialogue models. Specifically, predicting self-persona improves the consistency of the dialogue agent while detecting the persona of the dialogue partner improves the engagingness of generated responses. The experimental result also confirms the effectiveness of the proposed persona generator model and the persona reconstruction loss.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 882, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 638, + 675, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further understand the proposed models, we conduct an ablation study that focuses on: 1) the effectiveness of the multi-task learning architecture and the multi-task objective of persona detection models, and 2) the effect of available dialogue history length on the performance of persona detection models. We employ the dialogue response generation model with persona generator with self persona as the full model and compare it with the following ablated variants: (1) first half: The variant where only the first half of conversations are used as the test set, which makes the input dialogue history for persona generator shorter. (2) second half: The counterpart of first half where the available dialogue histories for persona generator are longer. (3) w/o shared layers: The vari-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2985", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/698993fc2919e5cc23ec8037fa1a673e8e467ef787b99f6f1b00f246625d23ed.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelperplexityDstHits@1Cons
DialogGPT w/o Persona15.4919.672.90.13
- first half18.3115.766.50.05
- second half13.2423.879.30.19
w/ Persona Generator13.3925.284.20.38
- first half16.2423.579.80.32
- second half12.0126.988.60.44
- w/o shared layers13.9224.983.50.35
- w/o joint training14.0524.783.80.36
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 83, + 485, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ant where the persona generator does not share its first layer with the encoder of the dialogue model. (4) w/o joint training: The variant where the persona generator is exclusively trained with the reconstruction loss without jointly training with the MLE objective.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 263, + 487, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of the ablation study are shown in Table 4. We can see that both sharing layers and joint training improve the performance of the persona detection model, which demonstrates the effectiveness of multi-task learning in our task. As for the influence of the length of the dialogue history, we find that the proposed persona generator model performs better when giving longer dialogue history (i.e., the second half of the conversation), which is demonstrated by a larger relative improvement compared with the sequence-to-sequence baseline given the same dialogue history. This is reasonable as longer dialogue history may provide richer information and help detect persona better. It also suggests that our approaches may be more effective for dialogue agents that aim to conduct relatively long dialogues with humans. This problem is similar to the well-known cold-start problem in the field of recommend systems. However, this does not suggest that our proposed approach is not useful for most application scenarios where the dialogue agent must start the dialogue from scratch. In contrast, our model will continually track the persona information of both the dialogue agent itself and the dialogue partner, thus maintaining a consistent persona throughout the progress of the dialogue and gradually improve the engagingness of generated responses with the dialogue going on. In addition, the ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is also beneficial for real-world applications, where although we can pre-define a persona for the dialogue agent, the users' persona is not always available.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e1b5e9ee57b9d3e4e9bdcdd1cf5c0332be96d14f6a00e09d6b9345a5fac0c86c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Results of the ablation study" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
No personaI don’t know what you could not do?
PE w/ selfI am going to the club now.
PE w/ theirDo you want to play frisbee or something?
PG w/ selfokay I am going to make a cake.
- Generated Persona:... I craving eating cake...
PG w/ theirI prefer that let’s watch tv together.
- Generated Persona:... I like TV show...
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 82, + 882, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Case study of the continuation of the conversation shown in Table 1 in the Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 184, + 880, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 Qualitative Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 227, + 714, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To better understand the proposed method intuitively, we conduct a case study by feeding different variants of the dialogue model with the dialogue history presented in the Appendix and generate different continuations of the conversation. The next utterances generated by different model variants are shown in Table 5. We can see that the dialogue model without persona information generates an irrelevant response that is not engaging. In contrast, both the persona encoder which takes the predefined persona description and the persona generator which infers the persona from dialogue history enables the dialogue agent to generate consistent and relevant responses, which are likely to be more engaging for the dialogue partner. In addition, we present the outputs of the decoder in the persona generator, which demonstrates that the proposed approach is more interpretable.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 249, + 882, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 552, + 640, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a dialogue personalization approach that automatically infers the current speakers' persona based on the dialogue history, which enables neural dialogue systems to generate personalized dialogue responses without using persona description at test time. Our experiments on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed models can improve the model's consistency and engagingness when conditioning on the inferred persona information of the dialogue agent itself or the dialogue partner. We also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset where persona description is not available and find that pre-trained persona detection models can be successfully transferred to other datasets without annotated persona descriptions. This confirms the potential of our approach for dialogue personalization in domains where persona descriptions are not available or expensive to collect. Nevertheless, our method still requires annotated persona information during training, which can be hard to", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 581, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2986", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "get for specific domains. We leave this for future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 127, + 220, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 152, + 487, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Considerations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 324, + 307, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our proposed method can generate personalized dialogue responses to users and improve the engagement of the dialogue systems. It faces several common ethics concerns that a neural dialogue system may generate unexpected responses that make human users uncomfortable. However, it is common for most neural dialogue systems. Another potential risk is that the persona generator may generate unexpected persona information that makes user uncomfortable. This issue could be addressed by adding constraints on the generated persona information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 349, + 487, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 568, + 213, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Andreas Argyriou, Theodoros Evgeniou, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2006. Multi-task feature learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 4-7, 2006, pages 41-48. MIT Press.", + "Antoine Bordes, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2017. Learning end-to-end goal-oriented dialog. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulouse, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net.", + "Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016a. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 110-119, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016b. A" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 589, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "persona-based neural conversation model. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 994-1003, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 986-995, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.", + "Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How NOT to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2122-2132, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhengyi Ma, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Hanxun Zhong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. One chatbot per person: Creating personalized chatbots based on implicit user profiles. In SIGIR, pages 555-564. ACM.", + "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Personalizing dialogue agents via meta-learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5454-5459, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Pierre-Emmanuel Mazare, Samuel Humeau, Martin Raison, and Antoine Bordes. 2018. Training millions of personalized dialogue agents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2775-2779, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Iulian Vlad Serban, Alessandro Sordoni, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron C. Courville, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. Building end-to-end dialogue systems using generative hierarchical neural network models. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pages 3776-3784. AAAI Press.", + "Haoyu Song, Yan Wang, Wei-Nan Zhang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Generate, delete and rewrite: A three-stage framework for improving persona consistency of dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5821-5831, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Haoyu Song, Weinan Zhang, Yiming Cui, Dong Wang, and Ting Liu. 2019. Exploiting persona information for diverse generation of conversational responses. In IJCAI, pages 5190-5196. ijcai.org." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2987", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Alessandro Sordoni, Michel Galley, Michael Auli, Chris Brockett, Yangfeng Ji, Margaret Mitchell, Jian-Yun Nie, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A neural network approach to context-sensitive generation of conversational responses. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 196-205, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2014, December 8-13 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 3104-3112.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008.", + "Sean Welleck, Jason Weston, Arthur Szlam, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Dialogue natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3731-3741, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Bowen Wu, MengYuan Li, Zongsheng Wang, Yifu Chen, Derek F. Wong, Qihang Feng, Junhong Huang, and Baoxun Wang. 2020. Guiding variational response generator to exploit persona. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 53-65, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Semih Yavuz, Abhinav Rastogi, Guan-Lin Chao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. DeepCopy: Grounded response generation with hierarchical pointer networks. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 122-132, Stockholm, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and Bill Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In ACL, system demonstration." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yinhe Zheng, Guanyi Chen, Minlie Huang, Song Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2019. Personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09672.", + "Wangchunshu Zhou and Ke Xu. 2020. Learning to compare for better training and evaluation of open domain natural language generation models. In AAAI, pages 9717-9724." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2988", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 83, + 218, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset. Our transfer experiments on the DialyDialog dataset and the additional Reddit dataset confirms the effectiveness of transferring a pre-trained persona detection model.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 109, + 485, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another limitation of this work is that adding the persona detection module will increase the model size and slow down the inference. The size issue can be reduced by sharing parameters between the persona detection module and the dialogue model. The inference speed issue only results in approximately $1.03 \\times$ inference latency compared to the original model because the majority inference time is on decoding which is less affected by the persona detection module.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 319, + 485, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2989", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 127, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 231, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 170, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 231, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 212, + 695, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 231, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 255, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 490, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 215, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 347, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 363, + 231, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 390, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 407, + 231, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 498, + 231, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 524, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 573, + 231, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 599, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 632, + 231, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 658, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 740, + 231, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 765, + 495, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 215, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 813, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 846, + 231, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2990", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank.", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank.", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 880, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 880, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2991", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_model.json b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f6ee4fc2c65097c56788f1a46b0020788410a5c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2173 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.177, + 0.091, + 0.823, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.306, + 0.155, + 0.703, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou*† Qifei Li* Chenle Li" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.358, + 0.173, + 0.645, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Beihang University, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.338, + 0.19, + 0.666, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "zhouwangchunshu@buaa.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Personalizing dialogue agents is important for dialogue systems to generate more specific, consistent, and engaging responses. However, most current dialogue personalization approaches rely on explicit persona descriptions during inference, which severely restricts its application. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that learns to predict persona information based on the dialogue history to personalize the dialogue agent without relying on any explicit persona descriptions during inference. Experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed method can improve the consistency of generated responses when conditioning on the predicted profile of the dialogue agent (i.e. \"self persona\"), and improve the engagingness of the generated responses when conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner (i.e. \"their persona\"). We also find that a trained persona prediction model can be successfully transferred to other datasets and help generate more relevant responses." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.619, + 0.26, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.644, + 0.486, + 0.836 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, end-to-end dialogue response generation models (Sordoni et al., 2015; Serban et al., 2016; Bordes et al., 2017) based on recent advances of neural sequence-to-sequence learning models (Sutskever et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) have gained increasing popularity as they can generate fluent responses. However, as the dialogue agent is trained with datasets containing dialogues from many different speakers, it can not generate personalized responses for the current speaker, making the generated responses less relevant and engaging (Li et al., 2016b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.838, + 0.487, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address this problem, recent studies attempt to personalize dialogue systems by generating dialogue responses conditioning on given persona" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.883, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "descriptions have been shown to help dialogue agents perform better (Zhang et al., 2018; Mazaré et al., 2018). However, a major drawback of the current dialogue agent personalization approaches is that they require explicit persona descriptions in both training and inference stages, which severely limits their application in real-world scenarios because detailed persona descriptions for current speakers are not available in most scenarios. Another problem is that current dialogue personalization approaches are not interpretable and the role of additional persona information is unclear." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.449, + 0.884, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel dialogue agent personalization approach that automatically infers the speaker's persona based on the dialogue history which implicitly contains persona information. Our model generates personalized dialogue responses based on the dialogue history and the inferred speaker persona, alleviating the necessity of the persona description during inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.58, + 0.882, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we propose two different approaches to perform persona detection. The first approach learns a \"persona approximator\" which takes dialogue history as the input and is trained to approximate the output representation of a persona encoder that takes explicit persona description as the input. The second approach instead addresses the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and learns a \"persona generator\" which takes the dialogue history as the input and generates the persona description of the speaker. This approach provides a stronger supervision signal compared with the first approach and is more interpretable as the encoded persona information can be decoded to reconstruct the detected persona description." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our proposed approach can be used to incorporate both \"self-persona\" which is the persona information of the dialogue agent, and \"their-persona\" which is the persona information of the dialogue partner. On one hand, generating dia" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.893, + 0.273, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal contribution." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.905, + 0.286, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Corresponding author" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.893, + 0.286, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2979" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.767, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 2979-2991" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.096, + 0.501, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.257, + 0.232, + 0.366, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) persona approximator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.102, + 0.892, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.633, + 0.23, + 0.785, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) persona denoising-autoencoder" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.258, + 0.882, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Illustration of the proposed persona detection models. The persona approximator is on the left. It is trained to maximize the embedding similarity between persona embedding approximated by the persona approximator and the persona encoder, which is obtained by taking dialogue history and persona description respectively. The persona generator is on the right, which is trained to recover persona description from the dialogue history, thus can also be viewed as a \"persona denosing-autoencoder\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.355, + 0.487, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "logue responses conditioning on the inferred \"self-persona\" can help the dialogue agent maintain a consistent persona during the conversation, thus enhancing the consistency of generated responses without the need of a pre-defined persona description for every dialogue agent. On the other hand, generating dialogue responses conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner helps the dialogue model generate more engaging responses that are relevant to its dialogue partner. The ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is particularly attractive because in many real-world application scenarios, the persona information of the user is hardly available before the dialogue starts. In addition, to facilitate training and tackle the problem of lacking training data, we propose to train the persona detection model with multi-task learning by sharing layers and training jointly with the dialogue context encoder in both approaches." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.679, + 0.487, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our experiments on dialogue datasets with and without the persona description demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach and show that a trained persona detection model can be successfully transferred to datasets without persona description." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.793, + 0.27, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Preliminary study on dialogue personalization (Li et al., 2016b) attempts to use a persona-based neural conversation model to capture individual characteristics such as background information and speaking style. However, it requires the current speaker during inference to have sufficient dia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.355, + 0.882, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "logue utterances included in the training set, which is quite restricted by the cold-start problem." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.389, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "More recently, Zhang et al. (2018) released the PersonaChat dataset which incorporates persona of two speakers represented as multiple sentences of profile description to personalize dialogue agents. They propose a profile memory network by considering the dialogue history as input and then performing attention over the persona to be combined with the dialogue history. Mazaré et al. (2018) proposed to train a persona encoder and combine the encoded persona embedding with context representation by concatenation. The combined representation is then fed into the dialogue decoder to generate personalized responses. (Yavuz et al., 2019) designed the DeepCopy model, which leverages copy mechanism to incorporate persona texts and Madotto et al. (2019) propose to use meta-learning to adapt to the current speaker quickly, their approach also requires several dialogues of the speaker to perform dialogue personalization, which is different from our approach. Welleck et al. (2019) propose a dialogue natural language inference dataset and use it to measure and improve the consistency of the dialogue system. More recently, Zheng et al. (2019) propose personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. Song et al. (2020) introduce a multi-stage response generation stage to improve the personalization of generated responses. Wu et al. (2020) propose a variational response generator to better exploit persona information. Different from the aforementioned works, our approach does not require persona information during test time, which makes it more generally applicable." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2980" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Concurrently, Ma et al. (2021) propose to infer implicit persona base on dialogue histories." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.145, + 0.264, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.182, + 0.489, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The motivation behind the proposed approach is that we can learn to detect the profile (i.e., persona) of dialogue speakers based on the dialogue history, which is demonstrated by experimental results in Zhang et al. (2018) that we can train a model to effectively distinguish the corresponding persona from randomly sampled negative persona based on the dialogue history." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.316, + 0.489, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The key idea is to jointly train a persona detection model with a conventional dialogue response generation model. The persona detection model is trained with persona description to infer the persona information based on the dialogue history, which provides persona information for the dialogue model, thus alleviating the necessity of provided persona information during test time. We propose two different persona detection models. The first model is a \"persona approximator\" and the second is a \"persona generator\". An overview of the proposed models is illustrated in Figure 1. We describe them in detail in this section, together with a multi-task learning objective which facilitates the training stage of the model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.584, + 0.281, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Task Definition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a dialogue dataset \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) with personas, an example of the dataset can be represented as a triplet \\((h,p,r)\\). Specifically, \\(h = \\{u_1,u_2,\\dots,u_{nh}\\}\\), which represents the dialogue history with \\(nh\\) utterances. \\(p = \\{p_1,p_2,\\dots,p_{np}\\}\\), which represents a persona with \\(np\\) profile sentences. \\(r\\) represents the ground-truth response. Existing personalized dialogue models learn a dialogue response generation model \\(G\\) which takes \\(h\\) and \\(p\\) as input during inference and generates a personalized response \\(G(h,p)\\). Our goal is to learn a persona detection model \\(D\\) which enables the dialogue model to generate personalized response \\(G(h,D(h))\\) without relying on given persona description \\(p\\) during test time. In this way, the persona description in the dataset is used to train the personalized dialogue agent and after training, our model should be able to generate personalized dialogue responses without relying on persona description." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.738, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Persona Approximator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.108, + 0.883, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The idea of persona approximator is that given a trained personalized dialogue model with persona encoder which takes the persona description as input and outputs the persona embedding, we can train a persona approximator which takes the dialogue history as input and learns to output a persona embedding which is similar with that encoded by the trained persona encoder. Persona embedding approximation is possible as dialogue history is shown to be sufficient for discriminating the corresponding persona (Zhang et al., 2018)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.286, + 0.885, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, given dialogue history \\( h \\) and persona description \\( p \\), the persona encoder \\( E \\) takes \\( p \\) as input and outputs persona embedding \\( emb(p) = E(p) \\). The proposed persona approximator \\( A \\) takes \\( h \\) as input and outputs the approximated persona embedding \\( a = A(h) \\). The training objective of \\( A \\) is to optimize the embedding similarity (e.g. cosine similarity) between \\( a \\) and \\( emb(p) \\). At the same time, we minimize the cosine similarity between \\( a \\) and the embedding of a randomly sampled persona embedding of another user, which serves as a negative example." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.481, + 0.884, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We discuss several pros and cons of the proposed persona approximator here. The advantage of this approach is that it alleviates the requirement of persona description during training and can incorporate several off-the-shelf personalized dialogue models with persona encoder seamlessly. However, as the persona encoder itself is far from perfect and non-interpretable, a persona approximator which is trained to approximate the persona encoder may also be sub-optimal and even less interpretable. Another issue is that the persona approximator can only be trained after training the dialogue model and persona encoder. To alleviate this problem and train an interpretable persona detection model more effectively, we propose another persona detection model which is named \"persona generator\"." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.769, + 0.707, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Persona Generator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As dialogue history can be used to predict the corresponding persona, which is demonstrated by Zhang et al. (2018), we hypothesize that dialogue history implicitly contains the persona of dialogue partners. Therefore, we argue that a good persona detection model should be able to reconstruct the dialogue partners' persona descriptions based on the dialogue history. Based on this in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2981" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sight, we propose a \"persona generator\" model which formulates the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and train the persona generator to recover the textual persona description of dialogue partners from the dialogue history." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.182, + 0.487, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, the persona generator receives the dialogue history \\( h \\) as input and is trained to generate the persona description \\( p \\), which is a sequence of tokens \\( p_i \\) of length \\( n \\). The persona generator is trained by maximizing the likelihood of the ground-truth persona descriptions:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.29, + 0.487, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathrm {L} _ {p g} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\log P \\left(p _ {i} \\mid p _ {< i}, h\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.341, + 0.487, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As illustrated in Figure 1(b), the persona generator consists of a persona encoder and a persona decoder. During training, the persona encoder takes the dialogue history as input and outputs a persona embedding that represents the persona information of either the dialogue model or its dialogue partner. The persona embedding is then concatenated with the context embedding generated by the dialogue encoder and fed into the dialogue decoder to generate the response. In addition, the persona embedding is also fed into the persona decoder to generate the textual persona description of the dialogue partner. During inference, only the encoder of the trained persona generator will be used to provide persona information for the response generation model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.599, + 0.489, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While previous dialogue personalization approaches, as well as the aforementioned persona approximator, generally train the persona encoder to maximize the likelihood of gold responses with MLE and can not ensure that the persona encoder actually captures useful persona information, the persona generator is directly trained to generate persona information from dialogue history, which enforces the persona information to be successfully captured. This approach also enhances the interpretability of the dialogue personalization procedure as the persona embedding encoded from dialogue history can be decoded into persona description with the decoder of trained persona generator." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.851, + 0.327, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Multi-Task Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.488, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training the proposed persona detection models can be difficult because the available persona description is limited. To alleviate this problem," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "we propose to adopt multi-task learning (Argyriou et al., 2006) by training the dialogue encoder jointly with the persona detection model. This is possible because both the dialogue encoder and the persona detection model take dialogue history as input and outputs a latent vector. The difference is that the dialogue context encoder is trained to provide direct information for response generation while the persona detection model is trained to predict persona description. These two tasks both require dialogue understanding and commonsense reasoning ability, which can be shared and help each other generalize better. We thus propose to adopt the multi-task learning paradigm to facilitate training. Specifically, we share the parameter of the first layer, which can be viewed as a general-purpose dialogue information encoder, between the dialogue context encoder and the persona detection model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.392, + 0.884, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we also train the persona detection model to maximize the likelihood of ground-truth responses together with the dialogue model, which ensures that the persona detection model not only encodes persona information but also helps generate more fluent dialogue responses. We control the relative importance between the original MLE objective and the training objectives of the proposed persona detection models by weighting the loss of persona detection objective with a hyperparameter \\(\\alpha\\) which is empirically set to 0.1 in our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.597, + 0.656, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.624, + 0.617, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.646, + 0.883, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct our experiments on PersonaChat dataset (Zhang et al., 2018) which is a multi-turn chit-chat conversation dataset containing conversations between human annotators who are randomly assigned a \"persona\". We experiment with two settings where the models are trained either with the persona description of themselves (i.e., self persona) or with the persona description of their dialogue partner (i.e., their persona). We present an example of the dataset in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.808, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we also expect our approach to be able to perform personalized dialogue response generation on other datasets (application scenarios) where persona description is not available even in the training set. Therefore, we also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset (Li et al., 2017), which is a multi-turn dialogue dataset" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2982" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in a similar domain with PersonaChat but without persona description, to explore the transferability of our approach." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.143, + 0.313, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.164, + 0.486, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For automated evaluation, we employ the following metrics following previous work:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.202, + 0.486, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Perplexity Following Zhang et al. (2018), we use perplexity (ppl) to measure the fluency of responses. Lower perplexity means better fluency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.275, + 0.486, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Distinct Following (Li et al., 2016a), we calculate the token ratios of distinct bigrams (Distinct-2, abbreviated as Dst for convenience). We use this metric to measure the diversity of the responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.364, + 0.486, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Hits@1 Following Zhang et al. (2018), Hit@1 measures the percentage of correct identification of a gold answer from a set of 19 distractors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.438, + 0.486, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Consistency We also include the Consistency score proposed by Welleck et al. (2019). It is calculated by subtracting the percentage of generated response entails or contradicts (predicted with a pretrained dialogue NLI model) the persona information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.543, + 0.486, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- P-Cover We also include the P-Cover metric proposed by Song et al. (2019), which evaluates how well the generated responses covers the persona information." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.202, + 0.486, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As automated metrics generally fail to correlate well with human evaluation (Liu et al., 2016; Zhou and Xu, 2020). We also systematically conduct human evaluation to further evaluate the proposed method. Specifically, we invite 20 human annotators that are all graduate students with good English proficiency to evaluate the quality of the model. Following Zhang et al. (2018), we ask human annotators to interact with compared models and evaluate the fluency, engagingness, and consistency of the model (scored between 1-5). In addition, the degree of personalization of the model is measured by the ability of human annotators to detect the model's profile after the conversation, which is measured by displaying the real persona description together with a randomly sampled persona description and asking the human annotator to select which is more likely to be the profile of the model. The persona detection metric is" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "only available in PersonaChat where test persona is available." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.128, + 0.704, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Compared Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.149, + 0.882, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To explore to what extent our proposed approach is able to personalize dialogue agents, we compare two variants of our model which incorporate the persona approximator method and the persona generator method with the following baseline models:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.256, + 0.882, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- DialogGPT A Transformer-based dialogue response generation based on the GPT-2 architecture and pre-trained on 147M conversation-like exchanges extracted from Reddit comment chains. It has 345M parameters and fine-tuned on Personachat by prepending all persona descriptions at the beginning of the dialogue context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.395, + 0.882, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- DialogGPT w/o persona The same Dialog-GPT model fine-tuned on Personachat dataset without using persona information during training or inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.47, + 0.882, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- DialogGPT+PE A transformer-based dialogue model based on pre-trained DialogGPT model and fine-tuned by training a transformer-based persona encoder to provide persona embedding information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.561, + 0.882, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- PersonaCVAE Our re-implementation of the PersonaCVAE model (Song et al., 2019) with the pre-trained DialogGPT as the base model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.62, + 0.882, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- GPMN Generative Profile Memory Network (Zhang et al., 2018) is an RNN-based model that encodes persona as memory representations in a memory network." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.256, + 0.882, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Both of our models (Persona Approximator and Persona Generator) are based on pre-trained DialogGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) and fine-tuned on Personachat. The model has the same architecture with GPT-2 and has 345M parameters. Fine-tuning hyperparameters are kept the same with Zhang et al. (2020). To make the model compatible with the encoder-decoder architecture described in the method section, we consider the hidden state of the last token in the transformer model as the context embedding. For the persona encoder, we share all layers except the last layer in the multi-task setting. The RNN-based baselines are trained from scratch and we used their original" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2983" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.082, + 0.871, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodSelf PersonaTheir Persona
pptDstHits@1ConsP-CoverpptDstHits@1ConsP-Cover
GPMN36.1113.554.90.15.01836.4514.851.40.10.021
DialogGPT13.6223.183.20.35.05214.0323.978.90.27.059
DialogGPT+PE13.5724.884.50.38.05513.9025.179.30.28.063
PersonaCVAE14.8325.7*84.00.37.06114.8825.678.30.24.066
DialogGPT w/o persona15.4919.672.90.13.012----
Persona Approximator14.4224.283.30.33.03814.6324.978.40.24.040
Persona Generator13.39*25.284.20.38.04913.8225.879.10.29.057
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.224, + 0.883, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Performance of dialogue models on automated evaluation metrics in the PersonaChat testset. \"Self persona\" means that the model is conditioned on the persona description of itself while \"their persona\" means the model is conditioned on the persona of its dialogue partner. We report the median as 5 random runs as the result. * denote statistically significant with p-value \\( < {0.05} \\) ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.308, + 0.486, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "architecture and training methods in the original paper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.351, + 0.331, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.372, + 0.486, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results on PersonaChat We first present the experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset where persona description is available during training. In this scenario, the persona detection model is trained in the same domain as the response generation model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.469, + 0.486, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of automated evaluation metrics are shown in Table 1. First, we can see that models explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions, including the dialogue model that incorporate a persona encoder (i.e., DialogGPT+PE) or prepend persona descriptions (i.e., DialogGPT), outperform the baseline model that does not exploit persona information by a relatively large margin in all automated metrics. Also, dialogue models with a pre-trained Transformer model (i.e., DialogGPT) substantially outperform RNN-based models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.647, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As for our proposed approaches, we find that both persona detection models substantially improve the performance upon the baseline with the pre-trained DialogGPT model without using persona information. When comparing the proposed two persona detection models, it is clear that the persona generator method performs much better than the persona approximator. Moreover, we find that it outperforms the competitive DialogGPT and DialogGPT+PE model on several automated metrics despite not using any persona information at test time. We hypothesis that it is because the persona generator is trained with the reconstruction loss, which is a useful supervision signal that is complementary to the MLE objective. In contrast, the persona encoder is trained jointly with the dialogue model by simply maximizing the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.308, + 0.881, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "likelihood of gold responses and may not actually capture the persona information. Our approach performs slightly worse than the best model using persona information in some metrics. However, the difference is very marginal even though our model does not take the persona information as input." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.421, + 0.881, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When comparing the performance of our proposed approaches trained with either \"self persona\" and \"their persona\", we can see that training the persona detection to predict the persona information of the dialogue system itself helps the model to maintain a consistent persona, thus improving the consistency of generated responses. In contrast, training the persona detection model to predict the persona of its dialogue partner helps the model to generate more diverse responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.581, + 0.881, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human evaluation results are shown in Table 2. We can see that dialogue models which explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions significantly improves all human evaluation metrics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.881, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As for our proposed approaches, we find that both proposed persona detection models can improve the consistency, engagingness, and persona detection accuracy upon the baseline seq2seq model without sacrificing the fluency of generated responses. The persona generator performs better than the persona approximator, which is consistent with the results in the automated evaluation. In addition, the persona generator model performs comparably and even better when compared with the competitive DialogGPT baseline. This demonstrates that our proposed method can effectively personalize dialogue agents without relying on pre-defined persona descriptions at test time." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.881, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similarly, we find that when conditioning on \"self persona\" as incorporating the persona description helps dialogue agents maintain a consis" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2984" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.082, + 0.864, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelPersonaFluencyEngagingnessConsistencyPersona Detection
DialogGPTself3.563.573.630.88
DialogGPTtheir3.493.593.470.80
DialogGPTboth3.633.693.600.88
DialogGPT+PEself3.623.493.610.87
DialogGPT+PEtheir3.573.513.520.82
DialogGPT+PEboth3.693.653.68*0.90
PersonaCVAEself3.513.553.530.85
PersonaCVAEtheir3.503.523.420.77
PersonaCVAEboth3.573.593.510.83
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.393.283.300.69
Persona Approximatorself3.453.403.350.78
Persona Approximatortheir3.363.433.270.73
Persona Generatorself3.673.613.580.89
Persona Generatortheir3.613.693.520.84
Persona Generatorboth3.72*3.74*3.630.90
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.346, + 0.883, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Human evaluation of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the PersonaChat dataset. * denote statistically significant with p-value \\( < {0.05} \\) . The Fleiss’s Kappa value is 0.67 , which indicates relatively strong inter-annotator agreement." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.414, + 0.487, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelPerFluenEngagConsis
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.423.413.48
w/ Persona Generatorself3.533.523.58
w/ Persona Generatortheir3.483.573.56
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.487, + 0.489, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Performance of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the Dailydialog dataset. The Fleiss's Kappa value is 0.61, indicating relatively strong inter-annotator agreement." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.557, + 0.487, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tent profile throughout the conversation. Again, when conditioned on \"their persona\", the dialogue agent learns to predict the profile of its dialogue partner, which helps generate more engaging and personalized responses. Based on this motivation, we also conduct experiment with both \"their\" and \"self\" persona at the same time. We find this make significant future improvement and enabling dialogue agent to generate dialogue responses that are both engaging and consistent." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the transferability of persona detection models As persona descriptions are not available in most scenarios and datasets, we aim to enable dialogue agent personalization for dialogue models trained in datasets where no persona description is available with a persona detection model pretrained on PersonaChat. To test the transferability of trained persona detection models, we combine persona detection models pretrained on the PersonaChat dataset with dialogue systems trained on the Dailydialog dataset. The pretrained persona detection models are fine-tuned" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.883, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "jointly with the pretrained dialogue model by maximizing the likelihood of ground-truth responses. The results are shown in Table 3. We can see that transferring pre-trained persona detection models in the target dialogue domain is able to improve the performance of dialogue models. Specifically, predicting self-persona improves the consistency of the dialogue agent while detecting the persona of the dialogue partner improves the engagingness of generated responses. The experimental result also confirms the effectiveness of the proposed persona generator model and the persona reconstruction loss." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.639, + 0.677, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further understand the proposed models, we conduct an ablation study that focuses on: 1) the effectiveness of the multi-task learning architecture and the multi-task objective of persona detection models, and 2) the effect of available dialogue history length on the performance of persona detection models. We employ the dialogue response generation model with persona generator with self persona as the full model and compare it with the following ablated variants: (1) first half: The variant where only the first half of conversations are used as the test set, which makes the input dialogue history for persona generator shorter. (2) second half: The counterpart of first half where the available dialogue histories for persona generator are longer. (3) w/o shared layers: The vari-" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2985" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.084, + 0.487, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelperplexityDstHits@1Cons
DialogGPT w/o Persona15.4919.672.90.13
- first half18.3115.766.50.05
- second half13.2423.879.30.19
w/ Persona Generator13.3925.284.20.38
- first half16.2423.579.80.32
- second half12.0126.988.60.44
- w/o shared layers13.9224.983.50.35
- w/o joint training14.0524.783.80.36
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.171, + 0.212, + 0.431, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Results of the ablation study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.265, + 0.488, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ant where the persona generator does not share its first layer with the encoder of the dialogue model. (4) w/o joint training: The variant where the persona generator is exclusively trained with the reconstruction loss without jointly training with the MLE objective." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.372, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of the ablation study are shown in Table 4. We can see that both sharing layers and joint training improve the performance of the persona detection model, which demonstrates the effectiveness of multi-task learning in our task. As for the influence of the length of the dialogue history, we find that the proposed persona generator model performs better when giving longer dialogue history (i.e., the second half of the conversation), which is demonstrated by a larger relative improvement compared with the sequence-to-sequence baseline given the same dialogue history. This is reasonable as longer dialogue history may provide richer information and help detect persona better. It also suggests that our approaches may be more effective for dialogue agents that aim to conduct relatively long dialogues with humans. This problem is similar to the well-known cold-start problem in the field of recommend systems. However, this does not suggest that our proposed approach is not useful for most application scenarios where the dialogue agent must start the dialogue from scratch. In contrast, our model will continually track the persona information of both the dialogue agent itself and the dialogue partner, thus maintaining a consistent persona throughout the progress of the dialogue and gradually improve the engagingness of generated responses with the dialogue going on. In addition, the ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is also beneficial for real-world applications, where although we can pre-define a persona for the dialogue agent, the users' persona is not always available." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.083, + 0.883, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
No personaI don’t know what you could not do?
PE w/ selfI am going to the club now.
PE w/ theirDo you want to play frisbee or something?
PG w/ selfokay I am going to make a cake.
- Generated Persona:... I craving eating cake...
PG w/ theirI prefer that let’s watch tv together.
- Generated Persona:... I like TV show...
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.185, + 0.882, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Case study of the continuation of the conversation shown in Table 1 in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.228, + 0.715, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 Qualitative Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.25, + 0.884, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To better understand the proposed method intuitively, we conduct a case study by feeding different variants of the dialogue model with the dialogue history presented in the Appendix and generate different continuations of the conversation. The next utterances generated by different model variants are shown in Table 5. We can see that the dialogue model without persona information generates an irrelevant response that is not engaging. In contrast, both the persona encoder which takes the predefined persona description and the persona generator which infers the persona from dialogue history enables the dialogue agent to generate consistent and relevant responses, which are likely to be more engaging for the dialogue partner. In addition, we present the outputs of the decoder in the persona generator, which demonstrates that the proposed approach is more interpretable." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.554, + 0.642, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.582, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a dialogue personalization approach that automatically infers the current speakers' persona based on the dialogue history, which enables neural dialogue systems to generate personalized dialogue responses without using persona description at test time. Our experiments on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed models can improve the model's consistency and engagingness when conditioning on the inferred persona information of the dialogue agent itself or the dialogue partner. We also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset where persona description is not available and find that pre-trained persona detection models can be successfully transferred to other datasets without annotated persona descriptions. This confirms the potential of our approach for dialogue personalization in domains where persona descriptions are not available or expensive to collect. Nevertheless, our method still requires annotated persona information during training, which can be hard to" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2986" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.487, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "get for specific domains. We leave this for future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.128, + 0.221, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.153, + 0.488, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.325, + 0.308, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.35, + 0.489, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our proposed method can generate personalized dialogue responses to users and improve the engagement of the dialogue systems. It faces several common ethics concerns that a neural dialogue system may generate unexpected responses that make human users uncomfortable. However, it is common for most neural dialogue systems. Another potential risk is that the persona generator may generate unexpected persona information that makes user uncomfortable. This issue could be addressed by adding constraints on the generated persona information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.569, + 0.214, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.59, + 0.487, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andreas Argyriou, Theodoros Evgeniou, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2006. Multi-task feature learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 4-7, 2006, pages 41-48. MIT Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.691, + 0.487, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2017. Learning end-to-end goal-oriented dialog. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulouse, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.778, + 0.486, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016a. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 110-119, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016b. A" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.59, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "persona-based neural conversation model. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 994-1003, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.164, + 0.882, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 986-995, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.268, + 0.882, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How NOT to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2122-2132, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.385, + 0.882, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengyi Ma, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Hanxun Zhong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. One chatbot per person: Creating personalized chatbots based on implicit user profiles. In SIGIR, pages 555-564. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.45, + 0.882, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Personalizing dialogue agents via meta-learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5454-5459, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.541, + 0.882, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pierre-Emmanuel Mazare, Samuel Humeau, Martin Raison, and Antoine Bordes. 2018. Training millions of personalized dialogue agents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2775-2779, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.645, + 0.882, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Iulian Vlad Serban, Alessandro Sordoni, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron C. Courville, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. Building end-to-end dialogue systems using generative hierarchical neural network models. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pages 3776-3784. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.749, + 0.882, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoyu Song, Yan Wang, Wei-Nan Zhang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Generate, delete and rewrite: A three-stage framework for improving persona consistency of dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5821-5831, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoyu Song, Weinan Zhang, Yiming Cui, Dong Wang, and Ting Liu. 2019. Exploiting persona information for diverse generation of conversational responses. In IJCAI, pages 5190-5196. ijcai.org." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2987" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alessandro Sordoni, Michel Galley, Michael Auli, Chris Brockett, Yangfeng Ji, Margaret Mitchell, Jian-Yun Nie, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A neural network approach to context-sensitive generation of conversational responses. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 196-205, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.229, + 0.486, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2014, December 8-13 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 3104-3112." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.333, + 0.486, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.437, + 0.486, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sean Welleck, Jason Weston, Arthur Szlam, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Dialogue natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3731-3741, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.528, + 0.486, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bowen Wu, MengYuan Li, Zongsheng Wang, Yifu Chen, Derek F. Wong, Qihang Feng, Junhong Huang, and Baoxun Wang. 2020. Guiding variational response generator to exploit persona. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 53-65, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.632, + 0.486, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Semih Yavuz, Abhinav Rastogi, Guan-Lin Chao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. DeepCopy: Grounded response generation with hierarchical pointer networks. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 122-132, Stockholm, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.736, + 0.486, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and Bill Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In ACL, system demonstration." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.881, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhe Zheng, Guanyi Chen, Minlie Huang, Song Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2019. Personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09672." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.881, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou and Ke Xu. 2020. Learning to compare for better training and evaluation of open domain natural language generation models. In AAAI, pages 9717-9724." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.881, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2988" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.084, + 0.22, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.11, + 0.486, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset. Our transfer experiments on the DialyDialog dataset and the additional Reddit dataset confirms the effectiveness of transferring a pre-trained persona detection model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.32, + 0.486, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another limitation of this work is that adding the persona detection module will increase the model size and slow down the inference. The size issue can be reduced by sharing parameters between the persona detection module and the dialogue model. The inference speed issue only results in approximately \\(1.03 \\times\\) inference latency compared to the original model because the majority inference time is on decoding which is less affected by the persona detection module." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2989" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.128, + 0.533, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.145, + 0.233, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.171, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.188, + 0.233, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.214, + 0.696, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.231, + 0.233, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.256, + 0.669, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.274, + 0.233, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.492, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.216, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.348, + 0.531, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.365, + 0.233, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.408, + 0.233, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.434, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.499, + 0.233, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.574, + 0.233, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.633, + 0.233, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.659, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.741, + 0.233, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.766, + 0.496, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.788, + 0.216, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.814, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.847, + 0.233, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2990" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.144, + 0.881, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.219, + 0.881, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.881, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.881, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.881, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.475, + 0.881, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.881, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.881, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2991" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9f73f1da96388f15f5850e468fb984ead712c96 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/f0fee746-cc54-4fcd-99b0-7a50975d57b6_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:72295338c0feeac742b28c83484bff3669c084f8bbb547ac3fa0a6108fba2220 +size 266862 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/full.md b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a4a8b081fee50c526253fdf3d472ab453f1a585 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,301 @@ +# Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description + +Wangchunshu Zhou*† Qifei Li* Chenle Li + +Beihang University, Beijing, China + +zhouwangchunshu@buaa.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Personalizing dialogue agents is important for dialogue systems to generate more specific, consistent, and engaging responses. However, most current dialogue personalization approaches rely on explicit persona descriptions during inference, which severely restricts its application. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that learns to predict persona information based on the dialogue history to personalize the dialogue agent without relying on any explicit persona descriptions during inference. Experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed method can improve the consistency of generated responses when conditioning on the predicted profile of the dialogue agent (i.e. "self persona"), and improve the engagingness of the generated responses when conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner (i.e. "their persona"). We also find that a trained persona prediction model can be successfully transferred to other datasets and help generate more relevant responses. + +# 1 Introduction + +Recently, end-to-end dialogue response generation models (Sordoni et al., 2015; Serban et al., 2016; Bordes et al., 2017) based on recent advances of neural sequence-to-sequence learning models (Sutskever et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) have gained increasing popularity as they can generate fluent responses. However, as the dialogue agent is trained with datasets containing dialogues from many different speakers, it can not generate personalized responses for the current speaker, making the generated responses less relevant and engaging (Li et al., 2016b). + +To address this problem, recent studies attempt to personalize dialogue systems by generating dialogue responses conditioning on given persona + +descriptions have been shown to help dialogue agents perform better (Zhang et al., 2018; Mazaré et al., 2018). However, a major drawback of the current dialogue agent personalization approaches is that they require explicit persona descriptions in both training and inference stages, which severely limits their application in real-world scenarios because detailed persona descriptions for current speakers are not available in most scenarios. Another problem is that current dialogue personalization approaches are not interpretable and the role of additional persona information is unclear. + +In this paper, we propose a novel dialogue agent personalization approach that automatically infers the speaker's persona based on the dialogue history which implicitly contains persona information. Our model generates personalized dialogue responses based on the dialogue history and the inferred speaker persona, alleviating the necessity of the persona description during inference. + +Specifically, we propose two different approaches to perform persona detection. The first approach learns a "persona approximator" which takes dialogue history as the input and is trained to approximate the output representation of a persona encoder that takes explicit persona description as the input. The second approach instead addresses the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and learns a "persona generator" which takes the dialogue history as the input and generates the persona description of the speaker. This approach provides a stronger supervision signal compared with the first approach and is more interpretable as the encoded persona information can be decoded to reconstruct the detected persona description. + +Our proposed approach can be used to incorporate both "self-persona" which is the persona information of the dialogue agent, and "their-persona" which is the persona information of the dialogue partner. On one hand, generating dia + +![](images/4cb8c5a697eb16fd6e2330f0c1251ea94b1192dd8c1babad772170fc5a832944.jpg) +(a) persona approximator + +![](images/ac75d05ad800e06da4eeffed2544e73818a095ba90f740ef39296110159c1612.jpg) +(b) persona denoising-autoencoder +Figure 1: Illustration of the proposed persona detection models. The persona approximator is on the left. It is trained to maximize the embedding similarity between persona embedding approximated by the persona approximator and the persona encoder, which is obtained by taking dialogue history and persona description respectively. The persona generator is on the right, which is trained to recover persona description from the dialogue history, thus can also be viewed as a "persona denosing-autoencoder". + +logue responses conditioning on the inferred "self-persona" can help the dialogue agent maintain a consistent persona during the conversation, thus enhancing the consistency of generated responses without the need of a pre-defined persona description for every dialogue agent. On the other hand, generating dialogue responses conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner helps the dialogue model generate more engaging responses that are relevant to its dialogue partner. The ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is particularly attractive because in many real-world application scenarios, the persona information of the user is hardly available before the dialogue starts. In addition, to facilitate training and tackle the problem of lacking training data, we propose to train the persona detection model with multi-task learning by sharing layers and training jointly with the dialogue context encoder in both approaches. + +Our experiments on dialogue datasets with and without the persona description demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach and show that a trained persona detection model can be successfully transferred to datasets without persona description. + +# 2 Related Work + +Preliminary study on dialogue personalization (Li et al., 2016b) attempts to use a persona-based neural conversation model to capture individual characteristics such as background information and speaking style. However, it requires the current speaker during inference to have sufficient dia + +logue utterances included in the training set, which is quite restricted by the cold-start problem. + +More recently, Zhang et al. (2018) released the PersonaChat dataset which incorporates persona of two speakers represented as multiple sentences of profile description to personalize dialogue agents. They propose a profile memory network by considering the dialogue history as input and then performing attention over the persona to be combined with the dialogue history. Mazaré et al. (2018) proposed to train a persona encoder and combine the encoded persona embedding with context representation by concatenation. The combined representation is then fed into the dialogue decoder to generate personalized responses. (Yavuz et al., 2019) designed the DeepCopy model, which leverages copy mechanism to incorporate persona texts and Madotto et al. (2019) propose to use meta-learning to adapt to the current speaker quickly, their approach also requires several dialogues of the speaker to perform dialogue personalization, which is different from our approach. Welleck et al. (2019) propose a dialogue natural language inference dataset and use it to measure and improve the consistency of the dialogue system. More recently, Zheng et al. (2019) propose personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. Song et al. (2020) introduce a multi-stage response generation stage to improve the personalization of generated responses. Wu et al. (2020) propose a variational response generator to better exploit persona information. Different from the aforementioned works, our approach does not require persona information during test time, which makes it more generally applicable. + +Concurrently, Ma et al. (2021) propose to infer implicit persona base on dialogue histories. + +# 3 Methodology + +The motivation behind the proposed approach is that we can learn to detect the profile (i.e., persona) of dialogue speakers based on the dialogue history, which is demonstrated by experimental results in Zhang et al. (2018) that we can train a model to effectively distinguish the corresponding persona from randomly sampled negative persona based on the dialogue history. + +The key idea is to jointly train a persona detection model with a conventional dialogue response generation model. The persona detection model is trained with persona description to infer the persona information based on the dialogue history, which provides persona information for the dialogue model, thus alleviating the necessity of provided persona information during test time. We propose two different persona detection models. The first model is a "persona approximator" and the second is a "persona generator". An overview of the proposed models is illustrated in Figure 1. We describe them in detail in this section, together with a multi-task learning objective which facilitates the training stage of the model. + +# 3.1 Task Definition + +Given a dialogue dataset $\mathcal{D}$ with personas, an example of the dataset can be represented as a triplet $(h,p,r)$ . Specifically, $h = \{u_1,u_2,\dots,u_{nh}\}$ , which represents the dialogue history with $nh$ utterances. $p = \{p_1,p_2,\dots,p_{np}\}$ , which represents a persona with $np$ profile sentences. $r$ represents the ground-truth response. Existing personalized dialogue models learn a dialogue response generation model $G$ which takes $h$ and $p$ as input during inference and generates a personalized response $G(h,p)$ . Our goal is to learn a persona detection model $D$ which enables the dialogue model to generate personalized response $G(h,D(h))$ without relying on given persona description $p$ during test time. In this way, the persona description in the dataset is used to train the personalized dialogue agent and after training, our model should be able to generate personalized dialogue responses without relying on persona description. + +# 3.2 Persona Approximator + +The idea of persona approximator is that given a trained personalized dialogue model with persona encoder which takes the persona description as input and outputs the persona embedding, we can train a persona approximator which takes the dialogue history as input and learns to output a persona embedding which is similar with that encoded by the trained persona encoder. Persona embedding approximation is possible as dialogue history is shown to be sufficient for discriminating the corresponding persona (Zhang et al., 2018). + +Formally, given dialogue history $h$ and persona description $p$ , the persona encoder $E$ takes $p$ as input and outputs persona embedding $emb(p) = E(p)$ . The proposed persona approximator $A$ takes $h$ as input and outputs the approximated persona embedding $a = A(h)$ . The training objective of $A$ is to optimize the embedding similarity (e.g. cosine similarity) between $a$ and $emb(p)$ . At the same time, we minimize the cosine similarity between $a$ and the embedding of a randomly sampled persona embedding of another user, which serves as a negative example. + +We discuss several pros and cons of the proposed persona approximator here. The advantage of this approach is that it alleviates the requirement of persona description during training and can incorporate several off-the-shelf personalized dialogue models with persona encoder seamlessly. However, as the persona encoder itself is far from perfect and non-interpretable, a persona approximator which is trained to approximate the persona encoder may also be sub-optimal and even less interpretable. Another issue is that the persona approximator can only be trained after training the dialogue model and persona encoder. To alleviate this problem and train an interpretable persona detection model more effectively, we propose another persona detection model which is named "persona generator". + +# 3.3 Persona Generator + +As dialogue history can be used to predict the corresponding persona, which is demonstrated by Zhang et al. (2018), we hypothesize that dialogue history implicitly contains the persona of dialogue partners. Therefore, we argue that a good persona detection model should be able to reconstruct the dialogue partners' persona descriptions based on the dialogue history. Based on this in + +sight, we propose a "persona generator" model which formulates the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and train the persona generator to recover the textual persona description of dialogue partners from the dialogue history. + +Formally, the persona generator receives the dialogue history $h$ as input and is trained to generate the persona description $p$ , which is a sequence of tokens $p_i$ of length $n$ . The persona generator is trained by maximizing the likelihood of the ground-truth persona descriptions: + +$$ +\mathrm {L} _ {p g} = - \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \log P \left(p _ {i} \mid p _ {< i}, h\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +As illustrated in Figure 1(b), the persona generator consists of a persona encoder and a persona decoder. During training, the persona encoder takes the dialogue history as input and outputs a persona embedding that represents the persona information of either the dialogue model or its dialogue partner. The persona embedding is then concatenated with the context embedding generated by the dialogue encoder and fed into the dialogue decoder to generate the response. In addition, the persona embedding is also fed into the persona decoder to generate the textual persona description of the dialogue partner. During inference, only the encoder of the trained persona generator will be used to provide persona information for the response generation model. + +While previous dialogue personalization approaches, as well as the aforementioned persona approximator, generally train the persona encoder to maximize the likelihood of gold responses with MLE and can not ensure that the persona encoder actually captures useful persona information, the persona generator is directly trained to generate persona information from dialogue history, which enforces the persona information to be successfully captured. This approach also enhances the interpretability of the dialogue personalization procedure as the persona embedding encoded from dialogue history can be decoded into persona description with the decoder of trained persona generator. + +# 3.4 Multi-Task Learning + +Training the proposed persona detection models can be difficult because the available persona description is limited. To alleviate this problem, + +we propose to adopt multi-task learning (Argyriou et al., 2006) by training the dialogue encoder jointly with the persona detection model. This is possible because both the dialogue encoder and the persona detection model take dialogue history as input and outputs a latent vector. The difference is that the dialogue context encoder is trained to provide direct information for response generation while the persona detection model is trained to predict persona description. These two tasks both require dialogue understanding and commonsense reasoning ability, which can be shared and help each other generalize better. We thus propose to adopt the multi-task learning paradigm to facilitate training. Specifically, we share the parameter of the first layer, which can be viewed as a general-purpose dialogue information encoder, between the dialogue context encoder and the persona detection model. + +In addition, we also train the persona detection model to maximize the likelihood of ground-truth responses together with the dialogue model, which ensures that the persona detection model not only encodes persona information but also helps generate more fluent dialogue responses. We control the relative importance between the original MLE objective and the training objectives of the proposed persona detection models by weighting the loss of persona detection objective with a hyperparameter $\alpha$ which is empirically set to 0.1 in our experiments. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Dataset + +We conduct our experiments on PersonaChat dataset (Zhang et al., 2018) which is a multi-turn chit-chat conversation dataset containing conversations between human annotators who are randomly assigned a "persona". We experiment with two settings where the models are trained either with the persona description of themselves (i.e., self persona) or with the persona description of their dialogue partner (i.e., their persona). We present an example of the dataset in the Appendix. + +In addition, we also expect our approach to be able to perform personalized dialogue response generation on other datasets (application scenarios) where persona description is not available even in the training set. Therefore, we also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset (Li et al., 2017), which is a multi-turn dialogue dataset + +in a similar domain with PersonaChat but without persona description, to explore the transferability of our approach. + +# 4.2 Evaluation Metrics + +For automated evaluation, we employ the following metrics following previous work: + +- Perplexity Following Zhang et al. (2018), we use perplexity (ppl) to measure the fluency of responses. Lower perplexity means better fluency. +- Distinct Following (Li et al., 2016a), we calculate the token ratios of distinct bigrams (Distinct-2, abbreviated as Dst for convenience). We use this metric to measure the diversity of the responses. +- Hits@1 Following Zhang et al. (2018), Hit@1 measures the percentage of correct identification of a gold answer from a set of 19 distractors. +- Consistency We also include the Consistency score proposed by Welleck et al. (2019). It is calculated by subtracting the percentage of generated response entails or contradicts (predicted with a pretrained dialogue NLI model) the persona information. +- P-Cover We also include the P-Cover metric proposed by Song et al. (2019), which evaluates how well the generated responses covers the persona information. + +As automated metrics generally fail to correlate well with human evaluation (Liu et al., 2016; Zhou and Xu, 2020). We also systematically conduct human evaluation to further evaluate the proposed method. Specifically, we invite 20 human annotators that are all graduate students with good English proficiency to evaluate the quality of the model. Following Zhang et al. (2018), we ask human annotators to interact with compared models and evaluate the fluency, engagingness, and consistency of the model (scored between 1-5). In addition, the degree of personalization of the model is measured by the ability of human annotators to detect the model's profile after the conversation, which is measured by displaying the real persona description together with a randomly sampled persona description and asking the human annotator to select which is more likely to be the profile of the model. The persona detection metric is + +only available in PersonaChat where test persona is available. + +# 4.3 Compared Models + +To explore to what extent our proposed approach is able to personalize dialogue agents, we compare two variants of our model which incorporate the persona approximator method and the persona generator method with the following baseline models: + +- DialogGPT A Transformer-based dialogue response generation based on the GPT-2 architecture and pre-trained on 147M conversation-like exchanges extracted from Reddit comment chains. It has 345M parameters and fine-tuned on Personachat by prepending all persona descriptions at the beginning of the dialogue context. +- DialogGPT w/o persona The same Dialog-GPT model fine-tuned on Personachat dataset without using persona information during training or inference. +- DialogGPT+PE A transformer-based dialogue model based on pre-trained DialogGPT model and fine-tuned by training a transformer-based persona encoder to provide persona embedding information. +- PersonaCVAE Our re-implementation of the PersonaCVAE model (Song et al., 2019) with the pre-trained DialogGPT as the base model. +- GPMN Generative Profile Memory Network (Zhang et al., 2018) is an RNN-based model that encodes persona as memory representations in a memory network. + +Both of our models (Persona Approximator and Persona Generator) are based on pre-trained DialogGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) and fine-tuned on Personachat. The model has the same architecture with GPT-2 and has 345M parameters. Fine-tuning hyperparameters are kept the same with Zhang et al. (2020). To make the model compatible with the encoder-decoder architecture described in the method section, we consider the hidden state of the last token in the transformer model as the context embedding. For the persona encoder, we share all layers except the last layer in the multi-task setting. The RNN-based baselines are trained from scratch and we used their original + +
MethodSelf PersonaTheir Persona
pptDstHits@1ConsP-CoverpptDstHits@1ConsP-Cover
GPMN36.1113.554.90.15.01836.4514.851.40.10.021
DialogGPT13.6223.183.20.35.05214.0323.978.90.27.059
DialogGPT+PE13.5724.884.50.38.05513.9025.179.30.28.063
PersonaCVAE14.8325.7*84.00.37.06114.8825.678.30.24.066
DialogGPT w/o persona15.4919.672.90.13.012----
Persona Approximator14.4224.283.30.33.03814.6324.978.40.24.040
Persona Generator13.39*25.284.20.38.04913.8225.879.10.29.057
+ +Table 1: Performance of dialogue models on automated evaluation metrics in the PersonaChat testset. "Self persona" means that the model is conditioned on the persona description of itself while "their persona" means the model is conditioned on the persona of its dialogue partner. We report the median as 5 random runs as the result. * denote statistically significant with p-value $< {0.05}$ . + +architecture and training methods in the original paper. + +# 4.4 Experimental Results + +Results on PersonaChat We first present the experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset where persona description is available during training. In this scenario, the persona detection model is trained in the same domain as the response generation model. + +The results of automated evaluation metrics are shown in Table 1. First, we can see that models explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions, including the dialogue model that incorporate a persona encoder (i.e., DialogGPT+PE) or prepend persona descriptions (i.e., DialogGPT), outperform the baseline model that does not exploit persona information by a relatively large margin in all automated metrics. Also, dialogue models with a pre-trained Transformer model (i.e., DialogGPT) substantially outperform RNN-based models. + +As for our proposed approaches, we find that both persona detection models substantially improve the performance upon the baseline with the pre-trained DialogGPT model without using persona information. When comparing the proposed two persona detection models, it is clear that the persona generator method performs much better than the persona approximator. Moreover, we find that it outperforms the competitive DialogGPT and DialogGPT+PE model on several automated metrics despite not using any persona information at test time. We hypothesis that it is because the persona generator is trained with the reconstruction loss, which is a useful supervision signal that is complementary to the MLE objective. In contrast, the persona encoder is trained jointly with the dialogue model by simply maximizing the + +likelihood of gold responses and may not actually capture the persona information. Our approach performs slightly worse than the best model using persona information in some metrics. However, the difference is very marginal even though our model does not take the persona information as input. + +When comparing the performance of our proposed approaches trained with either "self persona" and "their persona", we can see that training the persona detection to predict the persona information of the dialogue system itself helps the model to maintain a consistent persona, thus improving the consistency of generated responses. In contrast, training the persona detection model to predict the persona of its dialogue partner helps the model to generate more diverse responses. + +Human evaluation results are shown in Table 2. We can see that dialogue models which explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions significantly improves all human evaluation metrics. + +As for our proposed approaches, we find that both proposed persona detection models can improve the consistency, engagingness, and persona detection accuracy upon the baseline seq2seq model without sacrificing the fluency of generated responses. The persona generator performs better than the persona approximator, which is consistent with the results in the automated evaluation. In addition, the persona generator model performs comparably and even better when compared with the competitive DialogGPT baseline. This demonstrates that our proposed method can effectively personalize dialogue agents without relying on pre-defined persona descriptions at test time. + +Similarly, we find that when conditioning on "self persona" as incorporating the persona description helps dialogue agents maintain a consis + +
ModelPersonaFluencyEngagingnessConsistencyPersona Detection
DialogGPTself3.563.573.630.88
DialogGPTtheir3.493.593.470.80
DialogGPTboth3.633.693.600.88
DialogGPT+PEself3.623.493.610.87
DialogGPT+PEtheir3.573.513.520.82
DialogGPT+PEboth3.693.653.68*0.90
PersonaCVAEself3.513.553.530.85
PersonaCVAEtheir3.503.523.420.77
PersonaCVAEboth3.573.593.510.83
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.393.283.300.69
Persona Approximatorself3.453.403.350.78
Persona Approximatortheir3.363.433.270.73
Persona Generatorself3.673.613.580.89
Persona Generatortheir3.613.693.520.84
Persona Generatorboth3.72*3.74*3.630.90
+ +Table 2: Human evaluation of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the PersonaChat dataset. * denote statistically significant with p-value $< {0.05}$ . The Fleiss’s Kappa value is 0.67 , which indicates relatively strong inter-annotator agreement. + +
ModelPerFluenEngagConsis
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.423.413.48
w/ Persona Generatorself3.533.523.58
w/ Persona Generatortheir3.483.573.56
+ +Table 3: Performance of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the Dailydialog dataset. The Fleiss's Kappa value is 0.61, indicating relatively strong inter-annotator agreement. + +tent profile throughout the conversation. Again, when conditioned on "their persona", the dialogue agent learns to predict the profile of its dialogue partner, which helps generate more engaging and personalized responses. Based on this motivation, we also conduct experiment with both "their" and "self" persona at the same time. We find this make significant future improvement and enabling dialogue agent to generate dialogue responses that are both engaging and consistent. + +On the transferability of persona detection models As persona descriptions are not available in most scenarios and datasets, we aim to enable dialogue agent personalization for dialogue models trained in datasets where no persona description is available with a persona detection model pretrained on PersonaChat. To test the transferability of trained persona detection models, we combine persona detection models pretrained on the PersonaChat dataset with dialogue systems trained on the Dailydialog dataset. The pretrained persona detection models are fine-tuned + +jointly with the pretrained dialogue model by maximizing the likelihood of ground-truth responses. The results are shown in Table 3. We can see that transferring pre-trained persona detection models in the target dialogue domain is able to improve the performance of dialogue models. Specifically, predicting self-persona improves the consistency of the dialogue agent while detecting the persona of the dialogue partner improves the engagingness of generated responses. The experimental result also confirms the effectiveness of the proposed persona generator model and the persona reconstruction loss. + +# 4.5 Ablation Study + +To further understand the proposed models, we conduct an ablation study that focuses on: 1) the effectiveness of the multi-task learning architecture and the multi-task objective of persona detection models, and 2) the effect of available dialogue history length on the performance of persona detection models. We employ the dialogue response generation model with persona generator with self persona as the full model and compare it with the following ablated variants: (1) first half: The variant where only the first half of conversations are used as the test set, which makes the input dialogue history for persona generator shorter. (2) second half: The counterpart of first half where the available dialogue histories for persona generator are longer. (3) w/o shared layers: The vari- + +
ModelperplexityDstHits@1Cons
DialogGPT w/o Persona15.4919.672.90.13
- first half18.3115.766.50.05
- second half13.2423.879.30.19
w/ Persona Generator13.3925.284.20.38
- first half16.2423.579.80.32
- second half12.0126.988.60.44
- w/o shared layers13.9224.983.50.35
- w/o joint training14.0524.783.80.36
+ +ant where the persona generator does not share its first layer with the encoder of the dialogue model. (4) w/o joint training: The variant where the persona generator is exclusively trained with the reconstruction loss without jointly training with the MLE objective. + +The results of the ablation study are shown in Table 4. We can see that both sharing layers and joint training improve the performance of the persona detection model, which demonstrates the effectiveness of multi-task learning in our task. As for the influence of the length of the dialogue history, we find that the proposed persona generator model performs better when giving longer dialogue history (i.e., the second half of the conversation), which is demonstrated by a larger relative improvement compared with the sequence-to-sequence baseline given the same dialogue history. This is reasonable as longer dialogue history may provide richer information and help detect persona better. It also suggests that our approaches may be more effective for dialogue agents that aim to conduct relatively long dialogues with humans. This problem is similar to the well-known cold-start problem in the field of recommend systems. However, this does not suggest that our proposed approach is not useful for most application scenarios where the dialogue agent must start the dialogue from scratch. In contrast, our model will continually track the persona information of both the dialogue agent itself and the dialogue partner, thus maintaining a consistent persona throughout the progress of the dialogue and gradually improve the engagingness of generated responses with the dialogue going on. In addition, the ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is also beneficial for real-world applications, where although we can pre-define a persona for the dialogue agent, the users' persona is not always available. + +Table 4: Results of the ablation study + +
No personaI don’t know what you could not do?
PE w/ selfI am going to the club now.
PE w/ theirDo you want to play frisbee or something?
PG w/ selfokay I am going to make a cake.
- Generated Persona:... I craving eating cake...
PG w/ theirI prefer that let’s watch tv together.
- Generated Persona:... I like TV show...
+ +Table 5: Case study of the continuation of the conversation shown in Table 1 in the Appendix. + +# 4.6 Qualitative Analysis + +To better understand the proposed method intuitively, we conduct a case study by feeding different variants of the dialogue model with the dialogue history presented in the Appendix and generate different continuations of the conversation. The next utterances generated by different model variants are shown in Table 5. We can see that the dialogue model without persona information generates an irrelevant response that is not engaging. In contrast, both the persona encoder which takes the predefined persona description and the persona generator which infers the persona from dialogue history enables the dialogue agent to generate consistent and relevant responses, which are likely to be more engaging for the dialogue partner. In addition, we present the outputs of the decoder in the persona generator, which demonstrates that the proposed approach is more interpretable. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose a dialogue personalization approach that automatically infers the current speakers' persona based on the dialogue history, which enables neural dialogue systems to generate personalized dialogue responses without using persona description at test time. Our experiments on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed models can improve the model's consistency and engagingness when conditioning on the inferred persona information of the dialogue agent itself or the dialogue partner. We also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset where persona description is not available and find that pre-trained persona detection models can be successfully transferred to other datasets without annotated persona descriptions. This confirms the potential of our approach for dialogue personalization in domains where persona descriptions are not available or expensive to collect. Nevertheless, our method still requires annotated persona information during training, which can be hard to + +get for specific domains. We leave this for future work. + +# Limitations + +One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset. + +# Ethics Considerations + +Our proposed method can generate personalized dialogue responses to users and improve the engagement of the dialogue systems. It faces several common ethics concerns that a neural dialogue system may generate unexpected responses that make human users uncomfortable. However, it is common for most neural dialogue systems. Another potential risk is that the persona generator may generate unexpected persona information that makes user uncomfortable. This issue could be addressed by adding constraints on the generated persona information. + +# References + +Andreas Argyriou, Theodoros Evgeniou, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2006. Multi-task feature learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 4-7, 2006, pages 41-48. MIT Press. +Antoine Bordes, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2017. Learning end-to-end goal-oriented dialog. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulouse, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. +Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016a. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 110-119, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016b. A + +persona-based neural conversation model. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 994-1003, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 986-995, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. +Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How NOT to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2122-2132, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhengyi Ma, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Hanxun Zhong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. One chatbot per person: Creating personalized chatbots based on implicit user profiles. In SIGIR, pages 555-564. ACM. +Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Personalizing dialogue agents via meta-learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5454-5459, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Pierre-Emmanuel Mazare, Samuel Humeau, Martin Raison, and Antoine Bordes. 2018. Training millions of personalized dialogue agents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2775-2779, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Iulian Vlad Serban, Alessandro Sordoni, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron C. Courville, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. Building end-to-end dialogue systems using generative hierarchical neural network models. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pages 3776-3784. AAAI Press. +Haoyu Song, Yan Wang, Wei-Nan Zhang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Generate, delete and rewrite: A three-stage framework for improving persona consistency of dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5821-5831, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Haoyu Song, Weinan Zhang, Yiming Cui, Dong Wang, and Ting Liu. 2019. Exploiting persona information for diverse generation of conversational responses. In IJCAI, pages 5190-5196. ijcai.org. + +Alessandro Sordoni, Michel Galley, Michael Auli, Chris Brockett, Yangfeng Ji, Margaret Mitchell, Jian-Yun Nie, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A neural network approach to context-sensitive generation of conversational responses. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 196-205, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2014, December 8-13 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 3104-3112. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008. +Sean Welleck, Jason Weston, Arthur Szlam, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Dialogue natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3731-3741, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Bowen Wu, MengYuan Li, Zongsheng Wang, Yifu Chen, Derek F. Wong, Qihang Feng, Junhong Huang, and Baoxun Wang. 2020. Guiding variational response generator to exploit persona. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 53-65, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Semih Yavuz, Abhinav Rastogi, Guan-Lin Chao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. DeepCopy: Grounded response generation with hierarchical pointer networks. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 122-132, Stockholm, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and Bill Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In ACL, system demonstration. + +Yinhe Zheng, Guanyi Chen, Minlie Huang, Song Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2019. Personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09672. +Wangchunshu Zhou and Ke Xu. 2020. Learning to compare for better training and evaluation of open domain natural language generation models. In AAAI, pages 9717-9724. + +# Limitations + +One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset. Our transfer experiments on the DialyDialog dataset and the additional Reddit dataset confirms the effectiveness of transferring a pre-trained persona detection model. + +Another limitation of this work is that adding the persona detection module will increase the model size and slow down the inference. The size issue can be reduced by sharing parameters between the persona detection module and the dialogue model. The inference speed issue only results in approximately $1.03 \times$ inference latency compared to the original model because the majority inference time is on decoding which is less affected by the persona detection module. + +# A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +Left blank. + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +Left blank. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +Left blank. + +□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +# B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +Left blank. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +Left blank. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +Left blank. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Left blank. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Left blank. + +# C Did you run computational experiments? + +Left blank. + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Left blank. + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank. +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank. +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank. + +# D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/images.zip b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7b1fbf1fe0dc9c04dd23a370cfc870e2ed6c9bf --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f4bf8002a84c38c88d3893ab023471a40d4fee0ea7d646b9130de7a7a46ed8ff +size 281230 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/layout.json b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27b14ed5239123c635be09bb8f0de183b33525c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7169 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 76, + 489, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 76, + 489, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 76, + 489, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning to Predict Persona Information for Dialogue Personalization without Explicit Persona Description" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 130, + 418, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 130, + 418, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 130, + 418, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou*† Qifei Li* Chenle Li" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 145, + 383, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 145, + 383, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 145, + 383, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Beihang University, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 159, + 396, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 159, + 396, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 159, + 396, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "zhouwangchunshu@buaa.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Personalizing dialogue agents is important for dialogue systems to generate more specific, consistent, and engaging responses. However, most current dialogue personalization approaches rely on explicit persona descriptions during inference, which severely restricts its application. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that learns to predict persona information based on the dialogue history to personalize the dialogue agent without relying on any explicit persona descriptions during inference. Experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed method can improve the consistency of generated responses when conditioning on the predicted profile of the dialogue agent (i.e. \"self persona\"), and improve the engagingness of the generated responses when conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner (i.e. \"their persona\"). We also find that a trained persona prediction model can be successfully transferred to other datasets and help generate more relevant responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 520, + 154, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 520, + 154, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 520, + 154, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 289, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 289, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 289, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, end-to-end dialogue response generation models (Sordoni et al., 2015; Serban et al., 2016; Bordes et al., 2017) based on recent advances of neural sequence-to-sequence learning models (Sutskever et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) have gained increasing popularity as they can generate fluent responses. However, as the dialogue agent is trained with datasets containing dialogues from many different speakers, it can not generate personalized responses for the current speaker, making the generated responses less relevant and engaging (Li et al., 2016b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 289, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 289, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 289, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address this problem, recent studies attempt to personalize dialogue systems by generating dialogue responses conditioning on given persona" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 525, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "descriptions have been shown to help dialogue agents perform better (Zhang et al., 2018; Mazaré et al., 2018). However, a major drawback of the current dialogue agent personalization approaches is that they require explicit persona descriptions in both training and inference stages, which severely limits their application in real-world scenarios because detailed persona descriptions for current speakers are not available in most scenarios. Another problem is that current dialogue personalization approaches are not interpretable and the role of additional persona information is unclear." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel dialogue agent personalization approach that automatically infers the speaker's persona based on the dialogue history which implicitly contains persona information. Our model generates personalized dialogue responses based on the dialogue history and the inferred speaker persona, alleviating the necessity of the persona description during inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 524, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 524, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 524, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we propose two different approaches to perform persona detection. The first approach learns a \"persona approximator\" which takes dialogue history as the input and is trained to approximate the output representation of a persona encoder that takes explicit persona description as the input. The second approach instead addresses the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and learns a \"persona generator\" which takes the dialogue history as the input and generates the persona description of the speaker. This approach provides a stronger supervision signal compared with the first approach and is more interpretable as the encoded persona information can be decoded to reconstruct the detected persona description." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our proposed approach can be used to incorporate both \"self-persona\" which is the persona information of the dialogue agent, and \"their-persona\" which is the persona information of the dialogue partner. On one hand, generating dia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 751, + 162, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 751, + 162, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 751, + 162, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal contribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Corresponding author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2979" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 456, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 456, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 456, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 2979-2991" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 80, + 298, + 191 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 80, + 298, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 80, + 298, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 80, + 298, + 191 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4cb8c5a697eb16fd6e2330f0c1251ea94b1192dd8c1babad772170fc5a832944.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 195, + 217, + 203 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 195, + 217, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 195, + 217, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) persona approximator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 85, + 530, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 85, + 530, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 85, + 530, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 85, + 530, + 190 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ac75d05ad800e06da4eeffed2544e73818a095ba90f740ef39296110159c1612.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 193, + 467, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 193, + 467, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 193, + 467, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) persona denoising-autoencoder" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 524, + 278 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 524, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Illustration of the proposed persona detection models. The persona approximator is on the left. It is trained to maximize the embedding similarity between persona embedding approximated by the persona approximator and the persona encoder, which is obtained by taking dialogue history and persona description respectively. The persona generator is on the right, which is trained to recover persona description from the dialogue history, thus can also be viewed as a \"persona denosing-autoencoder\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 289, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "logue responses conditioning on the inferred \"self-persona\" can help the dialogue agent maintain a consistent persona during the conversation, thus enhancing the consistency of generated responses without the need of a pre-defined persona description for every dialogue agent. On the other hand, generating dialogue responses conditioning on the predicted persona of the dialogue partner helps the dialogue model generate more engaging responses that are relevant to its dialogue partner. The ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is particularly attractive because in many real-world application scenarios, the persona information of the user is hardly available before the dialogue starts. In addition, to facilitate training and tackle the problem of lacking training data, we propose to train the persona detection model with multi-task learning by sharing layers and training jointly with the dialogue context encoder in both approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 289, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 289, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 289, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our experiments on dialogue datasets with and without the persona description demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach and show that a trained persona detection model can be successfully transferred to datasets without persona description." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 160, + 679 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 160, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 160, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Preliminary study on dialogue personalization (Li et al., 2016b) attempts to use a persona-based neural conversation model to capture individual characteristics such as background information and speaking style. However, it requires the current speaker during inference to have sufficient dia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 524, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 524, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 524, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "logue utterances included in the training set, which is quite restricted by the cold-start problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "More recently, Zhang et al. (2018) released the PersonaChat dataset which incorporates persona of two speakers represented as multiple sentences of profile description to personalize dialogue agents. They propose a profile memory network by considering the dialogue history as input and then performing attention over the persona to be combined with the dialogue history. Mazaré et al. (2018) proposed to train a persona encoder and combine the encoded persona embedding with context representation by concatenation. The combined representation is then fed into the dialogue decoder to generate personalized responses. (Yavuz et al., 2019) designed the DeepCopy model, which leverages copy mechanism to incorporate persona texts and Madotto et al. (2019) propose to use meta-learning to adapt to the current speaker quickly, their approach also requires several dialogues of the speaker to perform dialogue personalization, which is different from our approach. Welleck et al. (2019) propose a dialogue natural language inference dataset and use it to measure and improve the consistency of the dialogue system. More recently, Zheng et al. (2019) propose personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. Song et al. (2020) introduce a multi-stage response generation stage to improve the personalization of generated responses. Wu et al. (2020) propose a variational response generator to better exploit persona information. Different from the aforementioned works, our approach does not require persona information during test time, which makes it more generally applicable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2980" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Concurrently, Ma et al. (2021) propose to infer implicit persona base on dialogue histories." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 121, + 157, + 137 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 121, + 157, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 121, + 157, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The motivation behind the proposed approach is that we can learn to detect the profile (i.e., persona) of dialogue speakers based on the dialogue history, which is demonstrated by experimental results in Zhang et al. (2018) that we can train a model to effectively distinguish the corresponding persona from randomly sampled negative persona based on the dialogue history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The key idea is to jointly train a persona detection model with a conventional dialogue response generation model. The persona detection model is trained with persona description to infer the persona information based on the dialogue history, which provides persona information for the dialogue model, thus alleviating the necessity of provided persona information during test time. We propose two different persona detection models. The first model is a \"persona approximator\" and the second is a \"persona generator\". An overview of the proposed models is illustrated in Figure 1. We describe them in detail in this section, together with a multi-task learning objective which facilitates the training stage of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 167, + 502 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 167, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 167, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Task Definition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a dialogue dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with personas, an example of the dataset can be represented as a triplet " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h,p,r)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Specifically, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h = \\{u_1,u_2,\\dots,u_{nh}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which represents the dialogue history with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "nh" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " utterances. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = \\{p_1,p_2,\\dots,p_{np}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which represents a persona with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "np" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " profile sentences. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the ground-truth response. Existing personalized dialogue models learn a dialogue response generation model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which takes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as input during inference and generates a personalized response " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G(h,p)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Our goal is to learn a persona detection model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which enables the dialogue model to generate personalized response " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G(h,D(h))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " without relying on given persona description " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 516, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " during test time. In this way, the persona description in the dataset is used to train the personalized dialogue agent and after training, our model should be able to generate personalized dialogue responses without relying on persona description." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 439, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 439, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 439, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Persona Approximator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 525, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 525, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 525, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The idea of persona approximator is that given a trained personalized dialogue model with persona encoder which takes the persona description as input and outputs the persona embedding, we can train a persona approximator which takes the dialogue history as input and learns to output a persona embedding which is similar with that encoded by the trained persona encoder. Persona embedding approximation is possible as dialogue history is shown to be sufficient for discriminating the corresponding persona (Zhang et al., 2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, given dialogue history " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and persona description " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the persona encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " takes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as input and outputs persona embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "emb(p) = E(p)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The proposed persona approximator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " takes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as input and outputs the approximated persona embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a = A(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The training objective of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is to optimize the embedding similarity (e.g. cosine similarity) between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "emb(p)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". At the same time, we minimize the cosine similarity between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the embedding of a randomly sampled persona embedding of another user, which serves as a negative example." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 525, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We discuss several pros and cons of the proposed persona approximator here. The advantage of this approach is that it alleviates the requirement of persona description during training and can incorporate several off-the-shelf personalized dialogue models with persona encoder seamlessly. However, as the persona encoder itself is far from perfect and non-interpretable, a persona approximator which is trained to approximate the persona encoder may also be sub-optimal and even less interpretable. Another issue is that the persona approximator can only be trained after training the dialogue model and persona encoder. To alleviate this problem and train an interpretable persona detection model more effectively, we propose another persona detection model which is named \"persona generator\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 420, + 657 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 420, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 420, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Persona Generator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As dialogue history can be used to predict the corresponding persona, which is demonstrated by Zhang et al. (2018), we hypothesize that dialogue history implicitly contains the persona of dialogue partners. Therefore, we argue that a good persona detection model should be able to reconstruct the dialogue partners' persona descriptions based on the dialogue history. Based on this in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2981" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sight, we propose a \"persona generator\" model which formulates the persona detection problem as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem and train the persona generator to recover the textual persona description of dialogue partners from the dialogue history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, the persona generator receives the dialogue history " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as input and is trained to generate the persona description " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is a sequence of tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 289, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The persona generator is trained by maximizing the likelihood of the ground-truth persona descriptions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 243, + 289, + 277 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 243, + 289, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 243, + 289, + 277 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm {L} _ {p g} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\log P \\left(p _ {i} \\mid p _ {< i}, h\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "0569eb691fcc1271f2eb4ec6b0a66c8f97187650cb1fc67cd7d301d367da4b06.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As illustrated in Figure 1(b), the persona generator consists of a persona encoder and a persona decoder. During training, the persona encoder takes the dialogue history as input and outputs a persona embedding that represents the persona information of either the dialogue model or its dialogue partner. The persona embedding is then concatenated with the context embedding generated by the dialogue encoder and fed into the dialogue decoder to generate the response. In addition, the persona embedding is also fed into the persona decoder to generate the textual persona description of the dialogue partner. During inference, only the encoder of the trained persona generator will be used to provide persona information for the response generation model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 503, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 503, + 290, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 503, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While previous dialogue personalization approaches, as well as the aforementioned persona approximator, generally train the persona encoder to maximize the likelihood of gold responses with MLE and can not ensure that the persona encoder actually captures useful persona information, the persona generator is directly trained to generate persona information from dialogue history, which enforces the persona information to be successfully captured. This approach also enhances the interpretability of the dialogue personalization procedure as the persona embedding encoded from dialogue history can be decoded into persona description with the decoder of trained persona generator." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 194, + 729 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 194, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 194, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Multi-Task Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training the proposed persona detection models can be difficult because the available persona description is limited. To alleviate this problem," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "we propose to adopt multi-task learning (Argyriou et al., 2006) by training the dialogue encoder jointly with the persona detection model. This is possible because both the dialogue encoder and the persona detection model take dialogue history as input and outputs a latent vector. The difference is that the dialogue context encoder is trained to provide direct information for response generation while the persona detection model is trained to predict persona description. These two tasks both require dialogue understanding and commonsense reasoning ability, which can be shared and help each other generalize better. We thus propose to adopt the multi-task learning paradigm to facilitate training. Specifically, we share the parameter of the first layer, which can be viewed as a general-purpose dialogue information encoder, between the dialogue context encoder and the persona detection model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we also train the persona detection model to maximize the likelihood of ground-truth responses together with the dialogue model, which ensures that the persona detection model not only encodes persona information but also helps generate more fluent dialogue responses. We control the relative importance between the original MLE objective and the training objectives of the proposed persona detection models by weighting the loss of persona detection objective with a hyperparameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is empirically set to 0.1 in our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 390, + 516 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 390, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 390, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 367, + 536 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 367, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 367, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct our experiments on PersonaChat dataset (Zhang et al., 2018) which is a multi-turn chit-chat conversation dataset containing conversations between human annotators who are randomly assigned a \"persona\". We experiment with two settings where the models are trained either with the persona description of themselves (i.e., self persona) or with the persona description of their dialogue partner (i.e., their persona). We present an example of the dataset in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we also expect our approach to be able to perform personalized dialogue response generation on other datasets (application scenarios) where persona description is not available even in the training set. Therefore, we also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset (Li et al., 2017), which is a multi-turn dialogue dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2982" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in a similar domain with PersonaChat but without persona description, to explore the transferability of our approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 120, + 186, + 132 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 120, + 186, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 120, + 186, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 289, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 289, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 289, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For automated evaluation, we employ the following metrics following previous work:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 169, + 289, + 510 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 169, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 169, + 289, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 169, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Perplexity Following Zhang et al. (2018), we use perplexity (ppl) to measure the fluency of responses. Lower perplexity means better fluency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 231, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 231, + 289, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 231, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Distinct Following (Li et al., 2016a), we calculate the token ratios of distinct bigrams (Distinct-2, abbreviated as Dst for convenience). We use this metric to measure the diversity of the responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 306, + 289, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 306, + 289, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 306, + 289, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Hits@1 Following Zhang et al. (2018), Hit@1 measures the percentage of correct identification of a gold answer from a set of 19 distractors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 368, + 289, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 368, + 289, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 368, + 289, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Consistency We also include the Consistency score proposed by Welleck et al. (2019). It is calculated by subtracting the percentage of generated response entails or contradicts (predicted with a pretrained dialogue NLI model) the persona information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 456, + 289, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 456, + 289, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 456, + 289, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- P-Cover We also include the P-Cover metric proposed by Song et al. (2019), which evaluates how well the generated responses covers the persona information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As automated metrics generally fail to correlate well with human evaluation (Liu et al., 2016; Zhou and Xu, 2020). We also systematically conduct human evaluation to further evaluate the proposed method. Specifically, we invite 20 human annotators that are all graduate students with good English proficiency to evaluate the quality of the model. Following Zhang et al. (2018), we ask human annotators to interact with compared models and evaluate the fluency, engagingness, and consistency of the model (scored between 1-5). In addition, the degree of personalization of the model is measured by the ability of human annotators to detect the model's profile after the conversation, which is measured by displaying the real persona description together with a randomly sampled persona description and asking the human annotator to select which is more likely to be the profile of the model. The persona detection metric is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "only available in PersonaChat where test persona is available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 107, + 418, + 120 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 107, + 418, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 107, + 418, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Compared Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 524, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 524, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 524, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To explore to what extent our proposed approach is able to personalize dialogue agents, we compare two variants of our model which incorporate the persona approximator method and the persona generator method with the following baseline models:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 215, + 524, + 574 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 215, + 524, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 215, + 524, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 215, + 524, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- DialogGPT A Transformer-based dialogue response generation based on the GPT-2 architecture and pre-trained on 147M conversation-like exchanges extracted from Reddit comment chains. It has 345M parameters and fine-tuned on Personachat by prepending all persona descriptions at the beginning of the dialogue context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 332, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 332, + 524, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 332, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- DialogGPT w/o persona The same Dialog-GPT model fine-tuned on Personachat dataset without using persona information during training or inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 395, + 524, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 395, + 524, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 395, + 524, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- DialogGPT+PE A transformer-based dialogue model based on pre-trained DialogGPT model and fine-tuned by training a transformer-based persona encoder to provide persona embedding information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 471, + 524, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 471, + 524, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 471, + 524, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- PersonaCVAE Our re-implementation of the PersonaCVAE model (Song et al., 2019) with the pre-trained DialogGPT as the base model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 521, + 524, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 521, + 524, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 521, + 524, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- GPMN Generative Profile Memory Network (Zhang et al., 2018) is an RNN-based model that encodes persona as memory representations in a memory network." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Both of our models (Persona Approximator and Persona Generator) are based on pre-trained DialogGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) and fine-tuned on Personachat. The model has the same architecture with GPT-2 and has 345M parameters. Fine-tuning hyperparameters are kept the same with Zhang et al. (2020). To make the model compatible with the encoder-decoder architecture described in the method section, we consider the hidden state of the last token in the transformer model as the context embedding. For the persona encoder, we share all layers except the last layer in the multi-task setting. The RNN-based baselines are trained from scratch and we used their original" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2983" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 518, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 518, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 518, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 518, + 174 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodSelf PersonaTheir Persona
pptDstHits@1ConsP-CoverpptDstHits@1ConsP-Cover
GPMN36.1113.554.90.15.01836.4514.851.40.10.021
DialogGPT13.6223.183.20.35.05214.0323.978.90.27.059
DialogGPT+PE13.5724.884.50.38.05513.9025.179.30.28.063
PersonaCVAE14.8325.7*84.00.37.06114.8825.678.30.24.066
DialogGPT w/o persona15.4919.672.90.13.012----
Persona Approximator14.4224.283.30.33.03814.6324.978.40.24.040
Persona Generator13.39*25.284.20.38.04913.8225.879.10.29.057
", + "image_path": "281a33f2dc7339013635ab656bb32e2706899071622e9875c39b0c8cb317a0d2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 525, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 525, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Performance of dialogue models on automated evaluation metrics in the PersonaChat testset. \"Self persona\" means that the model is conditioned on the persona description of itself while \"their persona\" means the model is conditioned on the persona of its dialogue partner. We report the median as 5 random runs as the result. * denote statistically significant with p-value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< {0.05}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 289, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 289, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 289, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "architecture and training methods in the original paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 196, + 308 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 196, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 196, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results on PersonaChat We first present the experimental results on the PersonaChat dataset where persona description is available during training. In this scenario, the persona detection model is trained in the same domain as the response generation model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 289, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 289, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 289, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of automated evaluation metrics are shown in Table 1. First, we can see that models explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions, including the dialogue model that incorporate a persona encoder (i.e., DialogGPT+PE) or prepend persona descriptions (i.e., DialogGPT), outperform the baseline model that does not exploit persona information by a relatively large margin in all automated metrics. Also, dialogue models with a pre-trained Transformer model (i.e., DialogGPT) substantially outperform RNN-based models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As for our proposed approaches, we find that both persona detection models substantially improve the performance upon the baseline with the pre-trained DialogGPT model without using persona information. When comparing the proposed two persona detection models, it is clear that the persona generator method performs much better than the persona approximator. Moreover, we find that it outperforms the competitive DialogGPT and DialogGPT+PE model on several automated metrics despite not using any persona information at test time. We hypothesis that it is because the persona generator is trained with the reconstruction loss, which is a useful supervision signal that is complementary to the MLE objective. In contrast, the persona encoder is trained jointly with the dialogue model by simply maximizing the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 524, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 524, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 524, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "likelihood of gold responses and may not actually capture the persona information. Our approach performs slightly worse than the best model using persona information in some metrics. However, the difference is very marginal even though our model does not take the persona information as input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When comparing the performance of our proposed approaches trained with either \"self persona\" and \"their persona\", we can see that training the persona detection to predict the persona information of the dialogue system itself helps the model to maintain a consistent persona, thus improving the consistency of generated responses. In contrast, training the persona detection model to predict the persona of its dialogue partner helps the model to generate more diverse responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 524, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 524, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 524, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human evaluation results are shown in Table 2. We can see that dialogue models which explicitly incorporate textual persona descriptions significantly improves all human evaluation metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 524, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 524, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 524, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As for our proposed approaches, we find that both proposed persona detection models can improve the consistency, engagingness, and persona detection accuracy upon the baseline seq2seq model without sacrificing the fluency of generated responses. The persona generator performs better than the persona approximator, which is consistent with the results in the automated evaluation. In addition, the persona generator model performs comparably and even better when compared with the competitive DialogGPT baseline. This demonstrates that our proposed method can effectively personalize dialogue agents without relying on pre-defined persona descriptions at test time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similarly, we find that when conditioning on \"self persona\" as incorporating the persona description helps dialogue agents maintain a consis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2984" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 514, + 277 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 514, + 277 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 514, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 514, + 277 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelPersonaFluencyEngagingnessConsistencyPersona Detection
DialogGPTself3.563.573.630.88
DialogGPTtheir3.493.593.470.80
DialogGPTboth3.633.693.600.88
DialogGPT+PEself3.623.493.610.87
DialogGPT+PEtheir3.573.513.520.82
DialogGPT+PEboth3.693.653.68*0.90
PersonaCVAEself3.513.553.530.85
PersonaCVAEtheir3.503.523.420.77
PersonaCVAEboth3.573.593.510.83
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.393.283.300.69
Persona Approximatorself3.453.403.350.78
Persona Approximatortheir3.363.433.270.73
Persona Generatorself3.673.613.580.89
Persona Generatortheir3.613.693.520.84
Persona Generatorboth3.72*3.74*3.630.90
", + "image_path": "86a9a0af833a4ab8b77cd3458161d86762f1d66cd991e0f9a5fc467fa6e1239b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 348, + 289, + 396 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 328 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Human evaluation of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the PersonaChat dataset. * denote statistically significant with p-value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< {0.05}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . The Fleiss’s Kappa value is 0.67 , which indicates relatively strong inter-annotator agreement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 348, + 289, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 348, + 289, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 348, + 289, + 396 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelPerFluenEngagConsis
DialogGPT w/o persona-3.423.413.48
w/ Persona Generatorself3.533.523.58
w/ Persona Generatortheir3.483.573.56
", + "image_path": "145ddacb4e3c505025b02b05c981461cee0a330441fe363e49e350aa6c817684.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 290, + 458 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 290, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 290, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Performance of dialogue models with different personalization approaches on the Dailydialog dataset. The Fleiss's Kappa value is 0.61, indicating relatively strong inter-annotator agreement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 289, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 289, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 289, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tent profile throughout the conversation. Again, when conditioned on \"their persona\", the dialogue agent learns to predict the profile of its dialogue partner, which helps generate more engaging and personalized responses. Based on this motivation, we also conduct experiment with both \"their\" and \"self\" persona at the same time. We find this make significant future improvement and enabling dialogue agent to generate dialogue responses that are both engaging and consistent." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the transferability of persona detection models As persona descriptions are not available in most scenarios and datasets, we aim to enable dialogue agent personalization for dialogue models trained in datasets where no persona description is available with a persona detection model pretrained on PersonaChat. To test the transferability of trained persona detection models, we combine persona detection models pretrained on the PersonaChat dataset with dialogue systems trained on the Dailydialog dataset. The pretrained persona detection models are fine-tuned" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "jointly with the pretrained dialogue model by maximizing the likelihood of ground-truth responses. The results are shown in Table 3. We can see that transferring pre-trained persona detection models in the target dialogue domain is able to improve the performance of dialogue models. Specifically, predicting self-persona improves the consistency of the dialogue agent while detecting the persona of the dialogue partner improves the engagingness of generated responses. The experimental result also confirms the effectiveness of the proposed persona generator model and the persona reconstruction loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 402, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 402, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 402, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further understand the proposed models, we conduct an ablation study that focuses on: 1) the effectiveness of the multi-task learning architecture and the multi-task objective of persona detection models, and 2) the effect of available dialogue history length on the performance of persona detection models. We employ the dialogue response generation model with persona generator with self persona as the full model and compare it with the following ablated variants: (1) first half: The variant where only the first half of conversations are used as the test set, which makes the input dialogue history for persona generator shorter. (2) second half: The counterpart of first half where the available dialogue histories for persona generator are longer. (3) w/o shared layers: The vari-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2985" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 289, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 289, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 289, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 289, + 164 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelperplexityDstHits@1Cons
DialogGPT w/o Persona15.4919.672.90.13
- first half18.3115.766.50.05
- second half13.2423.879.30.19
w/ Persona Generator13.3925.284.20.38
- first half16.2423.579.80.32
- second half12.0126.988.60.44
- w/o shared layers13.9224.983.50.35
- w/o joint training14.0524.783.80.36
", + "image_path": "698993fc2919e5cc23ec8037fa1a673e8e467ef787b99f6f1b00f246625d23ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 290, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 290, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ant where the persona generator does not share its first layer with the encoder of the dialogue model. (4) w/o joint training: The variant where the persona generator is exclusively trained with the reconstruction loss without jointly training with the MLE objective." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of the ablation study are shown in Table 4. We can see that both sharing layers and joint training improve the performance of the persona detection model, which demonstrates the effectiveness of multi-task learning in our task. As for the influence of the length of the dialogue history, we find that the proposed persona generator model performs better when giving longer dialogue history (i.e., the second half of the conversation), which is demonstrated by a larger relative improvement compared with the sequence-to-sequence baseline given the same dialogue history. This is reasonable as longer dialogue history may provide richer information and help detect persona better. It also suggests that our approaches may be more effective for dialogue agents that aim to conduct relatively long dialogues with humans. This problem is similar to the well-known cold-start problem in the field of recommend systems. However, this does not suggest that our proposed approach is not useful for most application scenarios where the dialogue agent must start the dialogue from scratch. In contrast, our model will continually track the persona information of both the dialogue agent itself and the dialogue partner, thus maintaining a consistent persona throughout the progress of the dialogue and gradually improve the engagingness of generated responses with the dialogue going on. In addition, the ability to automatically infer the persona information of the dialogue partner is also beneficial for real-world applications, where although we can pre-define a persona for the dialogue agent, the users' persona is not always available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 525, + 143 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 178, + 256, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 178, + 256, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 178, + 256, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Results of the ablation study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 525, + 143 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 525, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 525, + 143 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
No personaI don’t know what you could not do?
PE w/ selfI am going to the club now.
PE w/ theirDo you want to play frisbee or something?
PG w/ selfokay I am going to make a cake.
- Generated Persona:... I craving eating cake...
PG w/ theirI prefer that let’s watch tv together.
- Generated Persona:... I like TV show...
", + "image_path": "e1b5e9ee57b9d3e4e9bdcdd1cf5c0332be96d14f6a00e09d6b9345a5fac0c86c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 524, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Case study of the continuation of the conversation shown in Table 1 in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 425, + 204 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 425, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 425, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 Qualitative Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 210, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 210, + 525, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 210, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To better understand the proposed method intuitively, we conduct a case study by feeding different variants of the dialogue model with the dialogue history presented in the Appendix and generate different continuations of the conversation. The next utterances generated by different model variants are shown in Table 5. We can see that the dialogue model without persona information generates an irrelevant response that is not engaging. In contrast, both the persona encoder which takes the predefined persona description and the persona generator which infers the persona from dialogue history enables the dialogue agent to generate consistent and relevant responses, which are likely to be more engaging for the dialogue partner. In addition, we present the outputs of the decoder in the persona generator, which demonstrates that the proposed approach is more interpretable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 381, + 478 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 381, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 381, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a dialogue personalization approach that automatically infers the current speakers' persona based on the dialogue history, which enables neural dialogue systems to generate personalized dialogue responses without using persona description at test time. Our experiments on the PersonaChat dataset show that the proposed models can improve the model's consistency and engagingness when conditioning on the inferred persona information of the dialogue agent itself or the dialogue partner. We also conduct experiments on the Dailydialog dataset where persona description is not available and find that pre-trained persona detection models can be successfully transferred to other datasets without annotated persona descriptions. This confirms the potential of our approach for dialogue personalization in domains where persona descriptions are not available or expensive to collect. Nevertheless, our method still requires annotated persona information during training, which can be hard to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2986" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "get for specific domains. We leave this for future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 107, + 131, + 120 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 107, + 131, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 107, + 131, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 128, + 290, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 128, + 290, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 128, + 290, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 273, + 183, + 285 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 273, + 183, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 273, + 183, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 290, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our proposed method can generate personalized dialogue responses to users and improve the engagement of the dialogue systems. It faces several common ethics concerns that a neural dialogue system may generate unexpected responses that make human users uncomfortable. However, it is common for most neural dialogue systems. Another potential risk is that the persona generator may generate unexpected persona information that makes user uncomfortable. This issue could be addressed by adding constraints on the generated persona information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 478, + 127, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 478, + 127, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 478, + 127, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 496, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 496, + 289, + 574 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 496, + 289, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 496, + 289, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andreas Argyriou, Theodoros Evgeniou, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2006. Multi-task feature learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 4-7, 2006, pages 41-48. MIT Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 289, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 289, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 289, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2017. Learning end-to-end goal-oriented dialog. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulouse, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 289, + 743 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 289, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 289, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016a. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 110-119, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016b. A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 128 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "persona-based neural conversation model. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 994-1003, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 986-995, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 524, + 313 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 524, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 524, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How NOT to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2122-2132, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 323, + 524, + 369 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 323, + 524, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 323, + 524, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengyi Ma, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Hanxun Zhong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. One chatbot per person: Creating personalized chatbots based on implicit user profiles. In SIGIR, pages 555-564. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 378, + 524, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 378, + 524, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 378, + 524, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Personalizing dialogue agents via meta-learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5454-5459, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 524, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 524, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 524, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pierre-Emmanuel Mazare, Samuel Humeau, Martin Raison, and Antoine Bordes. 2018. Training millions of personalized dialogue agents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2775-2779, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 524, + 619 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 524, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 524, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Iulian Vlad Serban, Alessandro Sordoni, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron C. Courville, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. Building end-to-end dialogue systems using generative hierarchical neural network models. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pages 3776-3784. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 524, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 524, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 524, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoyu Song, Yan Wang, Wei-Nan Zhang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Generate, delete and rewrite: A three-stage framework for improving persona consistency of dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5821-5831, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoyu Song, Weinan Zhang, Yiming Cui, Dong Wang, and Ting Liu. 2019. Exploiting persona information for diverse generation of conversational responses. In IJCAI, pages 5190-5196. ijcai.org." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2987" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alessandro Sordoni, Michel Galley, Michael Auli, Chris Brockett, Yangfeng Ji, Margaret Mitchell, Jian-Yun Nie, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A neural network approach to context-sensitive generation of conversational responses. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 196-205, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 289, + 268 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 289, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 289, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2014, December 8-13 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 3104-3112." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 357 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 289, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 289, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 289, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sean Welleck, Jason Weston, Arthur Szlam, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Dialogue natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3731-3741, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 520 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bowen Wu, MengYuan Li, Zongsheng Wang, Yifu Chen, Derek F. Wong, Qihang Feng, Junhong Huang, and Baoxun Wang. 2020. Guiding variational response generator to exploit persona. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 53-65, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 289, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Semih Yavuz, Abhinav Rastogi, Guan-Lin Chao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. DeepCopy: Grounded response generation with hierarchical pointer networks. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 122-132, Stockholm, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 289, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 289, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 289, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and Bill Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In ACL, system demonstration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhe Zheng, Guanyi Chen, Minlie Huang, Song Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2019. Personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09672." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou and Ke Xu. 2020. Learning to compare for better training and evaluation of open domain natural language generation models. In AAAI, pages 9717-9724." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2988" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 130, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 130, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 130, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 289, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 289, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 289, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One limitation of this work is that while our approach alleviates the requirement of persona description during inference, it still requires persona description for the training corpus. A viable solution is to transfer the pre-trained persona detection models to other datasets without persona description in train set. However, the success of this approach may depend on the degree of similarity between the target dataset and the PersonaChat dataset. Our transfer experiments on the DialyDialog dataset and the additional Reddit dataset confirms the effectiveness of transferring a pre-trained persona detection model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another limitation of this work is that adding the persona detection module will increase the model size and slow down the inference. The size issue can be reduced by sharing parameters between the persona detection module and the dialogue model. The inference speed issue only results in approximately " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 402 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.03 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " inference latency compared to the original model because the majority inference time is on decoding which is less affected by the persona detection module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2989" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 138, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 143, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 138, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 414, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 138, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "□ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 292, + 266 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 292, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 292, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 128, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 292, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 138, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 138, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 138, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 138, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 138, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 138, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 138, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 138, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 138, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 138, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 138, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 138, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 138, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 138, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 138, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 554, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 138, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 138, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 138, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 295, + 657 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 295, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 295, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 128, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 128, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 128, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 684, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 684, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 684, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 138, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 138, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 138, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2990" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 524, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 524, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 524, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 184, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 524, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 524, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 524, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 524, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 524, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2991" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_content_list.json b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..975bfe93aa7fb32aaeb479390051150b754e8b3e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1688 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 117, + 90, + 878, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xingxian Liu, Yajing Xu*", + "bbox": [ + 391, + 137, + 615, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pattern Recognition & Intelligent System Laboratory", + "bbox": [ + 285, + 154, + 715, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 223, + 170, + 779, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{liuxingxian,xyj}@bupt.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 326, + 187, + 677, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to generate a specific summary for the given query according to the meeting transcripts. Due to the conflict between long meetings and limited input size, previous works mainly adopt extract-then-summarize methods, which use extractors to simulate binary labels or ROUGE scores to extract utterances related to the query and then generate a summary. However, the previous approach fails to fully use the comparison between utterances. To the extractor, comparison orders are more important than specific scores. In this paper, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework. It learns to rank the utterances by comparing them in pairs and learning from the global orders, then uses top utterances as the generator's input. We show that learning to rank utterances helps to select utterances related to the query effectively, and the summarizer can benefit from it. Experimental results on QMSum show that the proposed model outperforms all existing multi-stage models with fewer parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 615, + 258, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to summarize the crucial information for the given query into a concise passage according to the meeting transcripts. By responding to the query, QFMS can meet the user's need to focus on a specific aspect or topic of the meeting (Litvak and Vanetik, 2017; Baumel et al., 2018). Unlike the generic summary, QFMS requires the summary depending on both the given query and meeting transcripts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 640, + 487, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous works consist of end-to-end and two-stage frameworks. The end-to-end models take the whole long meeting as the input. Although some works such as HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020) and HATBART (Rohde et al., 2021) use hierarchical attention mechanism to alleviate the rapid growth", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 802, + 487, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6a17aed49b6dca121d58287ea1a95d4cf097b09067b083d53863e1c0b99132d3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 247, + 899, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dc9ebf2a7a4109935e12ab73fb190f2cf90ca7a86756aeeb24a8942f8e79a5c6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: (a) Locator-Generator framework, it predicts a binary label and uses Cross-Entropy loss to update parameters. (b) Simulator-Generator framework, it simulates the ROUGE score and uses Mean Squared Error loss to update parameters. (c) Ranker-Generator framework proposed in this paper, it learns to rank utterances from the relative order between utterances. The top K utterances can be passed to the generator." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 330, + 895, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in computational complexity, it's still faced with difficulties in training efficiency. The two-stage models extract utterances related to the query and then pass the concatenation of them to the generator. For QFMS, the key information related to the query scatters in certain parts of the meeting. Therefore, the two-stage framework is considered as a practical approach to balance experimental performance and computational efficiency in the long-input problems.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 882, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The two-stage framework mainly includes the Locator-Generator and the Simulator-Generator approaches. As shown in Figure 1, in the first stage, the Locator-Generator (Zhong et al., 2021b) framework considers it as a binary classification task. It predicts a binary label of whether the utterance is relevant to the query and uses cross-entropy loss to update parameters. But the hard binary labels can not reflect the relative quality. Especially when the training data is limited by scarcity, the binary classification will have a large margin between positive and negative samples. So the Simulator-Generator (Vig et al., 2022) framework considers", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Yajing Xu is the corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 904, + 379, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8496", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 8496-8505", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 945, + 768, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 958, + 699, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/233e4bffecdd15a639924a0cf551d220aff6372704ca2b27f7c05c08a6a71c57.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall model structure" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 895, + 236 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "it as a ROUGE score regression task. It simulates the ROUGE score and uses MSE loss to update parameters. However, there is a gap between the extractor's ultimate objective and the objective of minimizing the absolute error between predicted scores and ROUGE scores. In fact, rather than specific scores, we care more about the relative orders of utterances.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 285, + 487, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To make full use of the comparison information between samples, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework in this paper. To balance experimental effectiveness and computational efficiency, the framework contains three steps. First, the utterances would be divided into samples. We conduct pairwise ranking to get an order for each sample. Second, the top utterances in different samples would be fed into the re-ranker, which would conduct listwise ranking to get a global order. Finally, the top K utterances would be concatenated and passed to the generator.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 489, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To summarize, our contributions are as follows: (1) This paper demonstrates that, by enhancing the accuracy of extracting query-relevant utterances, the generator can make the summary more related to the query. (2) We propose a Ranker-Generator framework to extract query-relevant utterances by learning to rank discourse to improve the quality of the generated summaries. (3) Experimental results show that the proposed model outperforms existing multi-stage models with fewer model parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 608, + 489, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 780, + 218, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The architecture of our method is illustrated in Figure 2. Our model consists of a two-stage ranking step and a generating step. The utterances would be ranked by the Sample Pairwise Ranking module and the Global Listwise Re-ranking module, and top of them can be passed to the generator to produce the final summary.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Two-Stage Ranking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 285, + 712, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The utterance ranking orders for a brief meeting can be efficiently obtained using the single-stage ranking paradigm. However, the computing complexity of full-pairwise ranking grows at a square rate as the number of utterances grows. Therefore, we adopt a two-stage ranking framework. In the first stage, we propose sample pairwise ranking to reduce computational complexity. But sample pairwise ranking can only evaluate the relative quality within samples. It performs poorly when applied to utterances from various samples, e.g., the top utterances in sample 1 may be ranked lower in sample 2. To overcome the above problem, we apply global listwise re-ranking and concentrate on the top-k utterances in the second stage. Utterances that are unlikely to appear in the generator are filtered out by the pairwise ranking model, then global listwise ranking is conducted to get better top-k orders.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 305, + 885, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Sample Pairwise Ranking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 606, + 759, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, the ROUGE (Lin, 2004) scores between utterances $U$ and the gold summary $S^{*}$ are considered as the measure of query-relevance. The utterances from one meeting are divided into various samples. In one sample, the utterances would be ordered by the ROUGE scores. The ranker should be encouraged to assign higher relevance scores to these top utterances in the order. By learning to rank in pairwise, the model can distinguish the utterances that are more relevant to the query from the comparison. Following the previous work (Zhong et al., 2020), the loss is as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 885, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} L = \\sum_ {i} \\sum_ {j > i} \\max (0, f (U _ {j}) - f (U _ {i}) + \\lambda_ {i j}) (1) \\\\ \\lambda_ {i j} = (j - i) * \\lambda (2) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 829, + 882, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $U_{i}$ and $U_{j}$ are the $i$ -th and $j$ -th utterances in gold ranking orders,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8497", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathrm{ROUGE}(U_i, S^*) > \\mathrm{ROUGE}(U_j, S^*)$ , $\\forall i, j, i < j$ , $\\lambda$ is the base margin. $f(U_i)$ is the predicted query-relevance score given by a cross-encoder model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Global Listwise Re-ranking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 158, + 378, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, the top utterances in different samples are gathered in the re-ranking module. The gold orders would be determined by ranking the utterances according to the ROUGE scores. To obtain a more precise top-ranking order, we would perform a refined global sort on these top utterances from various samples using listwise re-ranking. Inspired by ListNet (Cao et al., 2007), we optimize the permutation probability distribution between predicted scores $s$ and the gold scores $s^*$ . The permutation probability is defined as", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 179, + 489, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {s} (\\pi) = \\prod_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (j)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (t)}\\right)} \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 365, + 487, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\pi$ is a permutation on the $\\mathfrak{n}$ objects, and $\\phi(.)$ is an increasing and strictly positive function.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 485, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "But different with ListNet, we optimize the top-k permutation probability rather than top-1 probability. The top-k permutation probability is as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 448, + 489, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {s} ^ {k} (\\pi) = \\prod_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\frac {\\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (j)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (t)}\\right)} \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 505, + 487, + 548 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For example, the top-3 permutation probability of $\\pi = \\langle 1,2,3,4,5\\rangle$ is as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 557, + 487, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {s} ^ {3} (\\pi) = \\frac {\\phi (s _ {1})}{\\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\cdot \\frac {\\phi (s _ {2})}{\\sum_ {i = 2} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\cdot \\frac {\\phi (s _ {3})}{\\sum_ {i = 3} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 596, + 487, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The predicted top1-to-topk distribution is $P_{s} = (P_{s}^{1}, P_{s}^{2}, \\dots, P_{s}^{k})$ , the gold top1-to-topk distribution is $P_{s^{*}} = (P_{s^{*}}^{1}, P_{s^{*}}^{2}, \\dots, P_{s^{*}}^{k})$ . We use KL-divergence to reduce the gap between the above two distributions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 638, + 489, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL = K L \\left(P _ {s ^ {*}} | | P _ {s}\\right) \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 724, + 487, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nK L \\left(P _ {s ^ {*}} \\| P _ {s}\\right) = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {k} P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i} \\cdot \\log \\frac {P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i}}{P _ {s} ^ {i}} \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 746, + 487, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.4 Generator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 796, + 243, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, after the two-stage ranking, top-k of the utterances would be concatenated and fed into the generator. In the generation stage, the objective is to minimize the cross-entropy loss:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 487, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL = - \\sum_ {i} p _ {g t} \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) \\log p \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 889, + 487, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np _ {g t} \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} 1 & S _ {i} = S _ {i} ^ {*} \\\\ 0 & S _ {i} \\neq S _ {i} ^ {*} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 96, + 882, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$U$ is the generator's input, $S^{*}$ is the gold summary.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 143, + 882, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 172, + 655, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 198, + 601, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.1 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 219, + 754, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models are implemented using the PyTorch framework. The pre-trained BART* from the Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library is used as the base abstractive model. The pre-trained MiniLM† from the sentence-transformers (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) library is used as the pairwise ranking model and the listwise re-ranking model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 239, + 882, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All experiments are conducted on NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU(24G memory). The generator model is trained for 10 epochs. For one model training, the average running time is around 2 hours. Weight hyperparameter $\\lambda$ is 0.01 in Equation 2. The generator's max length of the input is 1024, max length of the output is 256. Learning rate is 5e-6.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 351, + 882, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models were evaluated using the ROUGE metrics (Lin, 2004) in the SummEval toolkit (Fabbri et al., 2021) and each pair of results was subjected to t-test to confirm the effectiveness of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 882, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.2 Datasets Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 538, + 695, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b) is a query-focused meeting summarization dataset consisting of 1,808 query-summary pairs over 232 meetings from product design, academic, and political committee meetings. Additionally, QMSum contains manual annotations such as topic segmentation and relevant spans related to the reference summary.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 882, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.3 Baselines Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 680, + 700, + 694 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the proposed method with several baselines. TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004) is an extractive summarization method with a graph-based ranking model. PGNet (See et al., 2017) uses pointer mechanism to copy tokens from source texts. BART (Lewis et al., 2020) is a pre-trained encoder-decoder Transformer model with a denoising objective, which achieves advanced performance on several summarization datasets(i.e. CNN/DailyMail (Hermann et al., 2015) and Xsum", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 699, + 884, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*The checkpoint is \"facebook/bart-large\", containing around 400M parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 868, + 882, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The checkpoint is \"cross-encoder/ms-marco-MiniLM-L12-v2\", containing around 134M parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8498", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a53ae1dcd850066cf5cab90df39fcfa76388f61143ac93064850c1f4e9e7ded7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-LExtractor Size(M)
TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004)16.272.6915.41-
PGNet (See et al., 2017)28.745.9825.13-
BART (Lewis et al., 2020)29.206.3725.49-
LEAD + BART32.069.6727.93-
HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020)32.298.6728.17-
Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020)34.1810.3229.95-
DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a)33.699.3230.01-
SUMMN (Zhang et al., 2022)34.039.2829.48-
DYLE (Mao et al., 2022)34.429.7130.10501
Pointer Network + PGNet (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.378.4727.08440
Pointer Network + BART (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.748.5328.21440
RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022)33.0210.1728.90329
RELREG (Vig et al., 2022)34.9111.9130.731372
Oracle43.8019.6339.10
Locator-Generator31.47(-3.77)8.53(-3.70)28.21(-3.07)134
Simulator-Generator32.92(-2.59)9.46(-2.77)28.93(-2.35)134
Ranker-Generator35.5112.2331.28134
RankSUM(w/o re-ranking)33.02(-2.49)9.73(-2.50)29.15(-2.13)134
", + "bbox": [ + 188, + 83, + 811, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e0456bc8e7d1d2164d4e8fb014da7b701029179e0eed0d1e41992c154f7f3dcb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: ROUGE-F1 scores for different models on QMSum dataset." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsTop 5Top 10
R-1R-2R-LR-1R-2R-L
Gold26.327.5824.4320.555.1519.29
LEAD11.150.9910.1712.111.1111.10
RELREG18.022.4615.3015.022.3513.23
Locator16.892.2413.9714.101.9712.75
Simulator17.062.3614.8814.442.1413.06
Ours20.073.6917.7817.083.0115.48
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 365, + 463, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: ROUGE-F1 scores between the gold summary and top-5/top-10 utterances for different models on QM-Sum.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 489, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(Narayan et al., 2018)). LEAD+BART uses the beginning utterances as the BART's input. HM-Net (Zhu et al., 2020) uses a hierarchical attention mechanism and cross-domain pre-training for meeting summarization. Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) replaces the quadratic self-attention mechanism with a combination of local attention and sparse global attention. DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a) is a pre-train model using intra-window denoising self-reconstruction pre-training task and intra-block inter-block mixing attention. SUMM $^N$ (Zhang et al., 2022) is a multi-stage summarization framework for the long-input summarization task. DYLE (Mao et al., 2022) treats the extracted text snippets as the latent variable and jointly trains the extractor and the generator. Point Network+PGNet and Point Network+BART (Zhong et al., 2021b) adopt a two-stage approach of locate-then-summarize for long meeting summarization. RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022) and RELREG (Vig et al., 2022) considers extracting as a ROUGE regression model using bi-encoder and cross-encoder.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Results & Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 368, + 705, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ROUGE score (Lin, 2004) is adopted as the evaluation metric. The performances of our method and baselines are summarized in Table 1. Experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms the baselines $(p < 0.05)$ on QMSum dataset with fewer parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 394, + 882, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To have a fair comparison among the three frameworks, we design an experiment to evaluate the performance of these frameworks using the same backbone as the extractor and the same generator. The experimental results show that the proposed model significantly outperforms Locator-Generator and Simulator-Generator, which demonstrates that the ranker can obtain meeting utterances that are more suitable for the generator by learning to rank utterances.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 494, + 884, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To verify the effectiveness of the two-stage ranking paradigm, we conduct an ablation experiment. Our model significantly outperforms the model without re-ranking module $(p < 0.05)$ . Experimental results show that the model without re-ranking module reduces 2.49 ROUGE-1, 2.50 ROUGE-2, 2.13 ROUGE-L scores, which demonstrates the importance of the re-ranking module. By listwise ranking, we can get a more precise top-ranking order.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 885, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We have an interesting observation. Unlike the ROUGE score regression model, the ranker is less sensitive to the model size. We believe this is because learning the relative order by comparison is easier than fitting ROUGE scores separately. It reduces the ranker's reliance on the model size by", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8499", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1468e8fa92dd039c901a505e819ddd25fbd608a3e4472da19bef4a5e2f3c4796.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsFlu.QR.FC.
Gold4.884.904.92
BART4.483.783.64
RELREG4.514.124.07
Locator-Generator4.453.903.83
Simulator-Generator4.484.014.02
Ours4.524.404.21
", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 80, + 436, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Human evaluation on Fluency (Flu.), Query Relevance (QR.) and Factual Consistency (FC.) for QM-Sum.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 197, + 489, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "making full use of the comparison between samples. As a training task for extractors, learning to rank is a more suitable objective. Since to the extractor, it is the relative order that matters rather than the absolute error in fitting the ROUGE score.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 267, + 489, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Extractor Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 361, + 344, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct experiments to evaluate the performance of the extractor, which help to explore the impact of the extractor on the quality of the generated summaries. The lexical overlap metric between the extracted utterances and the gold summary is used to measure the relevance of the meeting utterances to the summary/query. The experimental results show that the ranker significantly outperforms the baselines in extracting relevant utterances. It demonstrates that by learning to rank utterances, the ranker is able to extract the utterances that are more relevant to the summary/query.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 384, + 489, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Human Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 310, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further conduct a manual evaluation to assess the models. We randomly select 50 samples from QMSum and ask 5 professional linguistic evaluators to score the ground truth and summaries generated by 5 models according to 3 metrics: fluency, query relevance and factual consistency. Each metric is rated from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) and the scores for each summary are averaged.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Table 3, the proposed model significantly outperforms all the baselines on query relevance, which benefits from the extractor's improvement on selecting the relevant utterances. Besides, the factual consistency score is also improved. We think that by comparing the relevance between utterances and the summary/query, the top utterances are more relevant to each other, which may help to improve factual consistency. In the aspect of fluency, the proposed model has only slight improvement compared to the baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 83, + 640, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper proposes a new multi-stage framework for QFMS. It learns to rank the meeting utterances by pairwise and listwise comparison between them. By selecting the utterances with high query-relevance scores as the generator's input, the generator can produce high-quality summaries that are more relevant to the query. The experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the Ranker-Generator framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 884, + 253 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 267, + 710, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by MoE-CMCC \"Artificial Intelligence\" Project No. MCM20190701 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC No.62076031).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 293, + 882, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback and helpful suggestions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 880, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 613, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper mainly focuses on the Query-focused Meeting Summarization(QFMS) task. Besides, We have explored the performance of the Ranker-Generator framework on the long-input summarization task. But the results do not show a significant improvement. Although QMSum dataset is also faced with the long-input challenge, the QFMS task only summarizes specific parts of the original text, so it can take these parts as the input. While the goal of the long-input summarization task is to generate an overall summary, which needs to have a global view on the original text. So we think the extract-then-generate framework is unsuitable for the long-input summarization task. The previous work $\\mathrm{SUMM}^N$ (Zhang et al., 2022) is more suitable for the long-input summarization task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 429, + 882, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, the multi-stage approach has a performance disadvantage over the end-to-end approach. However, the computational complexity of the multi-stage approach is much lower than that of the end-to-end approach. The multi-stage approach can balance experimental performance and computational complexity. So it is worthy of exploration as well as the end-to-end approach.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 687, + 884, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 828, + 662, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, all experiments are conducted on QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b), which is open-source and obeys MIT license. The meeting transcripts data doesn't contain any privacy information(such", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8500", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "as password, phone number and trade secrets) or offensive content.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 143, + 213, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tal Baumel, Matan Eyal, and Michael Elhadad. 2018. Query focused abstractive summarization: Incorporating query relevance, multi-document coverage, and summary length constraints into seq2seq models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07704.", + "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv:2004.05150.", + "Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In International Conference on Machine Learning.", + "Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysciński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391-409.", + "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marina Litvak and Natalia Vanetik. 2017. Query-based summarization using MDL principle. In Proceedings of the MultiLing 2017 Workshop on Summarization and Summary Evaluation Across Source Types and Genres, pages 22-31, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Ansong Ni, Yusen Zhang, Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Budhaditya Deb, Chenguang Zhu, Ahmed Awadallah, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. DYLE: Dynamic latent extraction for abstractive long-input summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1687-1698, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 167, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1797-1807, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tobias Rohde, Xiaoxia Wu, and Yinhan Liu. 2021. Hierarchical learning for generation with long source sequences. ArXiv, abs/2104.07545.", + "Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jesse Vig, Alexander Fabbri, Wojciech Kryscinski, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Wenhao Liu. 2022. Exploring neural models for query-focused summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 1455-1468, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yusen Zhang, Ansong Ni, Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Chenguang Zhu, Budhaditya Deb, Ahmed Awadallah, Dragomir Radev, and Rui Zhang. 2022. Summn: A multi-stage summarization framework for long input dialogues and documents. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1592–1604, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8501", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ming Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. Extractive summarization as text matching. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6197-6208, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ming Zhong, Yang Liu, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2021a. Dialoglm: Pre-trained model for long dialogue understanding and summarization. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 174, + 489, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021b. QMSum: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905-5921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 249, + 489, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chenguang Zhu, Ruochen Xu, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2020. A hierarchical network for abstractive meeting summarization with cross-domain pretraining. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 194–203, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 390, + 489, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 647, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: Why did the industrial designer disagree with the marketing when talking about some new ideas about future products?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 128, + 863, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gold: The marketing thought they should not trust too much the trend because it wouldn't last long - fruits and vegetables were in fashion this year but maybe next year it would be insects. However, the industrial designer believed it was good to follow the flow now and then since electronic devices were not long life products: if people changed, the product appearance should change as well.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 178, + 857, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous: Industrial Designer thought that it would be interesting to see if people would buy this one, and maybe add some features to it after. However, he thought it would not be very productive to go through all the process from the beginning to the end.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 313, + 860, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours: The industrial designer thought it was good to follow the flow and make it now and after, if the people change their mind, you change also the product.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 406, + 868, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/242f6a4fdab28e8d750df2d6421d6fb097720f86886dfdb1d67c0ff673ca8a5a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 608, + 479, + 638, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "About future trend", + "bbox": [ + 640, + 480, + 769, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8502", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b56fa3ade08c9dcf302ba6154a2ed1438aac566bcedae3e142fbcf4b974fb2b6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Query: What did Barry Hughes think about the targets regarding performance measure?
Gold: Barry Hughes stated that they did not have targets and only prosecuted with reasonable prospects. As for the police, there were no targets for the police anymore, except for some individuals.
Previous: Barry Hughes thought that there was a shortage of registered intermediaries in Wales, and the Ministry of Justice had taken action to deal with that, and they had had a number of people who were now in a position to act as intermediaries. Now, of course, if they were to decide not to do that anymore, they may have a problem, but, in turn, they would be looking to recruit more people into those positions. So, it had the potential to serve as a barrier, but in practice, he didn't think it would be a barrier.
Ours: Barry Hughes thought that the police were much more sensible these days than they may have been 20 years ago, in terms of trying to get cases charged in order to meet some notional target. In the CPS, they did not have targets for securing convictions or not. Clearly, they prosecuted if they thought that there was a reasonable prospect, a realistic prospect, of conviction and it was in the public interest.
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 361, + 835, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cb47a10a83f441bdd1494d5961cd59cb818872b453dfd604070b5f152d1b58f5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 357, + 615, + 384, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "About the performance measure", + "bbox": [ + 389, + 617, + 605, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8503", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 532, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Limitations section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 143, + 329, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 168, + 552, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Ethics Statement section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 187, + 369, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 695, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Abstract and Section 1.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 230, + 356, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 256, + 668, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 273, + 231, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 299, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yes, the References section.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 337, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 346, + 529, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yes, the References section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 363, + 354, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 388, + 778, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Ethics Statement section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 407, + 369, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 432, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Limitations section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 498, + 329, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 523, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Ethics Statement section.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 573, + 369, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 599, + 880, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not applicable. Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 632, + 349, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 657, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 740, + 242, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Section 3.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 787, + 208, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 812, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 846, + 242, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 877, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8504", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A.", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? \nAppendix A.", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix A." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3.4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 292, + 877, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 3.4.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? The Ethics Statement section.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 878, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8505", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_model.json b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36d15794c468e93f5532783965acd56b7336152d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1936 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.091, + 0.88, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.393, + 0.138, + 0.616, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xingxian Liu, Yajing Xu*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.286, + 0.155, + 0.717, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pattern Recognition & Intelligent System Laboratory" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.225, + 0.171, + 0.78, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.327, + 0.188, + 0.678, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{liuxingxian,xyj}@bupt.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to generate a specific summary for the given query according to the meeting transcripts. Due to the conflict between long meetings and limited input size, previous works mainly adopt extract-then-summarize methods, which use extractors to simulate binary labels or ROUGE scores to extract utterances related to the query and then generate a summary. However, the previous approach fails to fully use the comparison between utterances. To the extractor, comparison orders are more important than specific scores. In this paper, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework. It learns to rank the utterances by comparing them in pairs and learning from the global orders, then uses top utterances as the generator's input. We show that learning to rank utterances helps to select utterances related to the query effectively, and the summarizer can benefit from it. Experimental results on QMSum show that the proposed model outperforms all existing multi-stage models with fewer parameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.617, + 0.26, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.642, + 0.489, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to summarize the crucial information for the given query into a concise passage according to the meeting transcripts. By responding to the query, QFMS can meet the user's need to focus on a specific aspect or topic of the meeting (Litvak and Vanetik, 2017; Baumel et al., 2018). Unlike the generic summary, QFMS requires the summary depending on both the given query and meeting transcripts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.803, + 0.489, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous works consist of end-to-end and two-stage frameworks. The end-to-end models take the whole long meeting as the input. Although some works such as HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020) and HATBART (Rohde et al., 2021) use hierarchical attention mechanism to alleviate the rapid growth" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.248, + 0.9, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.331, + 0.897, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.41, + 0.886, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: (a) Locator-Generator framework, it predicts a binary label and uses Cross-Entropy loss to update parameters. (b) Simulator-Generator framework, it simulates the ROUGE score and uses Mean Squared Error loss to update parameters. (c) Ranker-Generator framework proposed in this paper, it learns to rank utterances from the relative order between utterances. The top K utterances can be passed to the generator." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.884, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in computational complexity, it's still faced with difficulties in training efficiency. The two-stage models extract utterances related to the query and then pass the concatenation of them to the generator. For QFMS, the key information related to the query scatters in certain parts of the meeting. Therefore, the two-stage framework is considered as a practical approach to balance experimental performance and computational efficiency in the long-input problems." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.711, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The two-stage framework mainly includes the Locator-Generator and the Simulator-Generator approaches. As shown in Figure 1, in the first stage, the Locator-Generator (Zhong et al., 2021b) framework considers it as a binary classification task. It predicts a binary label of whether the utterance is relevant to the query and uses cross-entropy loss to update parameters. But the hard binary labels can not reflect the relative quality. Especially when the training data is limited by scarcity, the binary classification will have a large margin between positive and negative samples. So the Simulator-Generator (Vig et al., 2022) framework considers" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.905, + 0.381, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Yajing Xu is the corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8496" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.946, + 0.769, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 8496-8505" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.959, + 0.7, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.083, + 0.896, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.369, + 0.246, + 0.629, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall model structure" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.286, + 0.489, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "it as a ROUGE score regression task. It simulates the ROUGE score and uses MSE loss to update parameters. However, there is a gap between the extractor's ultimate objective and the objective of minimizing the absolute error between predicted scores and ROUGE scores. In fact, rather than specific scores, we care more about the relative orders of utterances." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.415, + 0.49, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To make full use of the comparison information between samples, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework in this paper. To balance experimental effectiveness and computational efficiency, the framework contains three steps. First, the utterances would be divided into samples. We conduct pairwise ranking to get an order for each sample. Second, the top utterances in different samples would be fed into the re-ranker, which would conduct listwise ranking to get a global order. Finally, the top K utterances would be concatenated and passed to the generator." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.609, + 0.49, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To summarize, our contributions are as follows: (1) This paper demonstrates that, by enhancing the accuracy of extracting query-relevant utterances, the generator can make the summary more related to the query. (2) We propose a Ranker-Generator framework to extract query-relevant utterances by learning to rank discourse to improve the quality of the generated summaries. (3) Experimental results show that the proposed model outperforms existing multi-stage models with fewer model parameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.781, + 0.22, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The architecture of our method is illustrated in Figure 2. Our model consists of a two-stage ranking step and a generating step. The utterances would be ranked by the Sample Pairwise Ranking module and the Global Listwise Re-ranking module, and top of them can be passed to the generator to produce the final summary." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.286, + 0.713, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Two-Stage Ranking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.306, + 0.886, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The utterance ranking orders for a brief meeting can be efficiently obtained using the single-stage ranking paradigm. However, the computing complexity of full-pairwise ranking grows at a square rate as the number of utterances grows. Therefore, we adopt a two-stage ranking framework. In the first stage, we propose sample pairwise ranking to reduce computational complexity. But sample pairwise ranking can only evaluate the relative quality within samples. It performs poorly when applied to utterances from various samples, e.g., the top utterances in sample 1 may be ranked lower in sample 2. To overcome the above problem, we apply global listwise re-ranking and concentrate on the top-k utterances in the second stage. Utterances that are unlikely to appear in the generator are filtered out by the pairwise ranking model, then global listwise ranking is conducted to get better top-k orders." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.607, + 0.761, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Sample Pairwise Ranking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.627, + 0.886, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, the ROUGE (Lin, 2004) scores between utterances \\( U \\) and the gold summary \\( S^{*} \\) are considered as the measure of query-relevance. The utterances from one meeting are divided into various samples. In one sample, the utterances would be ordered by the ROUGE scores. The ranker should be encouraged to assign higher relevance scores to these top utterances in the order. By learning to rank in pairwise, the model can distinguish the utterances that are more relevant to the query from the comparison. Following the previous work (Zhong et al., 2020), the loss is as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.83, + 0.884, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} L = \\sum_ {i} \\sum_ {j > i} \\max (0, f (U _ {j}) - f (U _ {i}) + \\lambda_ {i j}) (1) \\\\ \\lambda_ {i j} = (j - i) * \\lambda (2) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(U_{i}\\) and \\(U_{j}\\) are the \\(i\\)-th and \\(j\\)-th utterances in gold ranking orders," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8497" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathrm{ROUGE}(U_i, S^*) > \\mathrm{ROUGE}(U_j, S^*)\\), \\(\\forall i, j, i < j\\), \\(\\lambda\\) is the base margin. \\(f(U_i)\\) is the predicted query-relevance score given by a cross-encoder model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.159, + 0.379, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Global Listwise Re-ranking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.18, + 0.49, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, the top utterances in different samples are gathered in the re-ranking module. The gold orders would be determined by ranking the utterances according to the ROUGE scores. To obtain a more precise top-ranking order, we would perform a refined global sort on these top utterances from various samples using listwise re-ranking. Inspired by ListNet (Cao et al., 2007), we optimize the permutation probability distribution between predicted scores \\( s \\) and the gold scores \\( s^* \\). The permutation probability is defined as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.366, + 0.488, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP _ {s} (\\pi) = \\prod_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (j)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (t)}\\right)} \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.416, + 0.487, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\pi\\) is a permutation on the \\(\\mathfrak{n}\\) objects, and \\(\\phi(.)\\) is an increasing and strictly positive function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.449, + 0.49, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "But different with ListNet, we optimize the top-k permutation probability rather than top-1 probability. The top-k permutation probability is as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.506, + 0.488, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP _ {s} ^ {k} (\\pi) = \\prod_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\frac {\\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (j)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (t)}\\right)} \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.558, + 0.489, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For example, the top-3 permutation probability of \\(\\pi = \\langle 1,2,3,4,5\\rangle\\) is as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.597, + 0.488, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP _ {s} ^ {3} (\\pi) = \\frac {\\phi (s _ {1})}{\\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\cdot \\frac {\\phi (s _ {2})}{\\sum_ {i = 2} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\cdot \\frac {\\phi (s _ {3})}{\\sum_ {i = 3} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.639, + 0.49, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The predicted top1-to-topk distribution is \\( P_{s} = (P_{s}^{1}, P_{s}^{2}, \\dots, P_{s}^{k}) \\), the gold top1-to-topk distribution is \\( P_{s^{*}} = (P_{s^{*}}^{1}, P_{s^{*}}^{2}, \\dots, P_{s^{*}}^{k}) \\). We use KL-divergence to reduce the gap between the above two distributions." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.23, + 0.725, + 0.488, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL = K L \\left(P _ {s ^ {*}} | | P _ {s}\\right) \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.173, + 0.747, + 0.488, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nK L \\left(P _ {s ^ {*}} \\| P _ {s}\\right) = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {k} P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i} \\cdot \\log \\frac {P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i}}{P _ {s} ^ {i}} \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.797, + 0.245, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.4 Generator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.818, + 0.489, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, after the two-stage ranking, top-k of the utterances would be concatenated and fed into the generator. In the generation stage, the objective is to minimize the cross-entropy loss:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.89, + 0.488, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL = - \\sum_ {i} p _ {g t} \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) \\log p \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.097, + 0.883, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np _ {g t} \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} 1 & S _ {i} = S _ {i} ^ {*} \\\\ 0 & S _ {i} \\neq S _ {i} ^ {*} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.144, + 0.884, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(U\\) is the generator's input, \\(S^{*}\\) is the gold summary." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.173, + 0.656, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.199, + 0.602, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.22, + 0.756, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.1 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.24, + 0.884, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models are implemented using the PyTorch framework. The pre-trained BART* from the Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library is used as the base abstractive model. The pre-trained MiniLM† from the sentence-transformers (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) library is used as the pairwise ranking model and the listwise re-ranking model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.353, + 0.884, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All experiments are conducted on NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU(24G memory). The generator model is trained for 10 epochs. For one model training, the average running time is around 2 hours. Weight hyperparameter \\(\\lambda\\) is 0.01 in Equation 2. The generator's max length of the input is 1024, max length of the output is 256. Learning rate is 5e-6." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.466, + 0.884, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models were evaluated using the ROUGE metrics (Lin, 2004) in the SummEval toolkit (Fabbri et al., 2021) and each pair of results was subjected to t-test to confirm the effectiveness of our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.539, + 0.696, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.2 Datasets Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.559, + 0.884, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b) is a query-focused meeting summarization dataset consisting of 1,808 query-summary pairs over 232 meetings from product design, academic, and political committee meetings. Additionally, QMSum contains manual annotations such as topic segmentation and relevant spans related to the reference summary." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.681, + 0.702, + 0.695 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.3 Baselines Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.7, + 0.885, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the proposed method with several baselines. TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004) is an extractive summarization method with a graph-based ranking model. PGNet (See et al., 2017) uses pointer mechanism to copy tokens from source texts. BART (Lewis et al., 2020) is a pre-trained encoder-decoder Transformer model with a denoising objective, which achieves advanced performance on several summarization datasets(i.e. CNN/DailyMail (Hermann et al., 2015) and Xsum" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.869, + 0.883, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*The checkpoint is \"facebook/bart-large\", containing around 400M parameters." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.894, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The checkpoint is \"cross-encoder/ms-marco-MiniLM-L12-v2\", containing around 134M parameters." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.869, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8498" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.189, + 0.084, + 0.812, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-LExtractor Size(M)
TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004)16.272.6915.41-
PGNet (See et al., 2017)28.745.9825.13-
BART (Lewis et al., 2020)29.206.3725.49-
LEAD + BART32.069.6727.93-
HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020)32.298.6728.17-
Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020)34.1810.3229.95-
DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a)33.699.3230.01-
SUMMN (Zhang et al., 2022)34.039.2829.48-
DYLE (Mao et al., 2022)34.429.7130.10501
Pointer Network + PGNet (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.378.4727.08440
Pointer Network + BART (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.748.5328.21440
RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022)33.0210.1728.90329
RELREG (Vig et al., 2022)34.9111.9130.731372
Oracle43.8019.6339.10
Locator-Generator31.47(-3.77)8.53(-3.70)28.21(-3.07)134
Simulator-Generator32.92(-2.59)9.46(-2.77)28.93(-2.35)134
Ranker-Generator35.5112.2331.28134
RankSUM(w/o re-ranking)33.02(-2.49)9.73(-2.50)29.15(-2.13)134
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.263, + 0.328, + 0.733, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: ROUGE-F1 scores for different models on QMSum dataset." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.366, + 0.465, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsTop 5Top 10
R-1R-2R-LR-1R-2R-L
Gold26.327.5824.4320.555.1519.29
LEAD11.150.9910.1712.111.1111.10
RELREG18.022.4615.3015.022.3513.23
Locator16.892.2413.9714.101.9712.75
Simulator17.062.3614.8814.442.1413.06
Ours20.073.6917.7817.083.0115.48
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.478, + 0.49, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: ROUGE-F1 scores between the gold summary and top-5/top-10 utterances for different models on QM-Sum." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.55, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(Narayan et al., 2018)). LEAD+BART uses the beginning utterances as the BART's input. HM-Net (Zhu et al., 2020) uses a hierarchical attention mechanism and cross-domain pre-training for meeting summarization. Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) replaces the quadratic self-attention mechanism with a combination of local attention and sparse global attention. DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a) is a pre-train model using intra-window denoising self-reconstruction pre-training task and intra-block inter-block mixing attention. SUMM\\(^N\\) (Zhang et al., 2022) is a multi-stage summarization framework for the long-input summarization task. DYLE (Mao et al., 2022) treats the extracted text snippets as the latent variable and jointly trains the extractor and the generator. Point Network+PGNet and Point Network+BART (Zhong et al., 2021b) adopt a two-stage approach of locate-then-summarize for long meeting summarization. RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022) and RELREG (Vig et al., 2022) considers extracting as a ROUGE regression model using bi-encoder and cross-encoder." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.369, + 0.707, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Results & Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.395, + 0.884, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ROUGE score (Lin, 2004) is adopted as the evaluation metric. The performances of our method and baselines are summarized in Table 1. Experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms the baselines \\((p < 0.05)\\) on QMSum dataset with fewer parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.495, + 0.885, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To have a fair comparison among the three frameworks, we design an experiment to evaluate the performance of these frameworks using the same backbone as the extractor and the same generator. The experimental results show that the proposed model significantly outperforms Locator-Generator and Simulator-Generator, which demonstrates that the ranker can obtain meeting utterances that are more suitable for the generator by learning to rank utterances." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.887, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To verify the effectiveness of the two-stage ranking paradigm, we conduct an ablation experiment. Our model significantly outperforms the model without re-ranking module \\((p < 0.05)\\). Experimental results show that the model without re-ranking module reduces 2.49 ROUGE-1, 2.50 ROUGE-2, 2.13 ROUGE-L scores, which demonstrates the importance of the re-ranking module. By listwise ranking, we can get a more precise top-ranking order." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We have an interesting observation. Unlike the ROUGE score regression model, the ranker is less sensitive to the model size. We believe this is because learning the relative order by comparison is easier than fitting ROUGE scores separately. It reduces the ranker's reliance on the model size by" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8499" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.166, + 0.082, + 0.437, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsFlu.QR.FC.
Gold4.884.904.92
BART4.483.783.64
RELREG4.514.124.07
Locator-Generator4.453.903.83
Simulator-Generator4.484.014.02
Ours4.524.404.21
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Human evaluation on Fluency (Flu.), Query Relevance (QR.) and Factual Consistency (FC.) for QM-Sum." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.268, + 0.49, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "making full use of the comparison between samples. As a training task for extractors, learning to rank is a more suitable objective. Since to the extractor, it is the relative order that matters rather than the absolute error in fitting the ROUGE score." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.362, + 0.345, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Extractor Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.385, + 0.49, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct experiments to evaluate the performance of the extractor, which help to explore the impact of the extractor on the quality of the generated summaries. The lexical overlap metric between the extracted utterances and the gold summary is used to measure the relevance of the meeting utterances to the summary/query. The experimental results show that the ranker significantly outperforms the baselines in extracting relevant utterances. It demonstrates that by learning to rank utterances, the ranker is able to extract the utterances that are more relevant to the summary/query." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.591, + 0.312, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Human Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further conduct a manual evaluation to assess the models. We randomly select 50 samples from QMSum and ask 5 professional linguistic evaluators to score the ground truth and summaries generated by 5 models according to 3 metrics: fluency, query relevance and factual consistency. Each metric is rated from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) and the scores for each summary are averaged." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Table 3, the proposed model significantly outperforms all the baselines on query relevance, which benefits from the extractor's improvement on selecting the relevant utterances. Besides, the factual consistency score is also improved. We think that by comparing the relevance between utterances and the summary/query, the top utterances are more relevant to each other, which may help to improve factual consistency. In the aspect of fluency, the proposed model has only slight improvement compared to the baselines." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.084, + 0.642, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.111, + 0.885, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper proposes a new multi-stage framework for QFMS. It learns to rank the meeting utterances by pairwise and listwise comparison between them. By selecting the utterances with high query-relevance scores as the generator's input, the generator can produce high-quality summaries that are more relevant to the query. The experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the Ranker-Generator framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.268, + 0.712, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.294, + 0.884, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by MoE-CMCC \"Artificial Intelligence\" Project No. MCM20190701 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC No.62076031)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.359, + 0.882, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback and helpful suggestions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.403, + 0.615, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.43, + 0.884, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper mainly focuses on the Query-focused Meeting Summarization(QFMS) task. Besides, We have explored the performance of the Ranker-Generator framework on the long-input summarization task. But the results do not show a significant improvement. Although QMSum dataset is also faced with the long-input challenge, the QFMS task only summarizes specific parts of the original text, so it can take these parts as the input. While the goal of the long-input summarization task is to generate an overall summary, which needs to have a global view on the original text. So we think the extract-then-generate framework is unsuitable for the long-input summarization task. The previous work \\(\\mathrm{SUMM}^N\\) (Zhang et al., 2022) is more suitable for the long-input summarization task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.688, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, the multi-stage approach has a performance disadvantage over the end-to-end approach. However, the computational complexity of the multi-stage approach is much lower than that of the end-to-end approach. The multi-stage approach can balance experimental performance and computational complexity. So it is worthy of exploration as well as the end-to-end approach." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.829, + 0.663, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, all experiments are conducted on QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b), which is open-source and obeys MIT license. The meeting transcripts data doesn't contain any privacy information(such" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8500" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "as password, phone number and trade secrets) or offensive content." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.145, + 0.214, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.168, + 0.49, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tal Baumel, Matan Eyal, and Michael Elhadad. 2018. Query focused abstractive summarization: Incorporating query relevance, multi-document coverage, and summary length constraints into seq2seq models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07704." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.246, + 0.489, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv:2004.05150." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.297, + 0.489, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In International Conference on Machine Learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.361, + 0.489, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysciński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391-409." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.439, + 0.489, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.516, + 0.489, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.646, + 0.489, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.71, + 0.489, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marina Litvak and Natalia Vanetik. 2017. Query-based summarization using MDL principle. In Proceedings of the MultiLing 2017 Workshop on Summarization and Summary Evaluation Across Source Types and Genres, pages 22-31, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Ansong Ni, Yusen Zhang, Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Budhaditya Deb, Chenguang Zhu, Ahmed Awadallah, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. DYLE: Dynamic latent extraction for abstractive long-input summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1687-1698, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.168, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.162, + 0.885, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1797-1807, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.264, + 0.885, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.379, + 0.885, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tobias Rohde, Xiaoxia Wu, and Yinhan Liu. 2021. Hierarchical learning for generation with long source sequences. ArXiv, abs/2104.07545." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.429, + 0.885, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.531, + 0.885, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jesse Vig, Alexander Fabbri, Wojciech Kryscinski, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Wenhao Liu. 2022. Exploring neural models for query-focused summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 1455-1468, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.633, + 0.885, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.8, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yusen Zhang, Ansong Ni, Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Chenguang Zhu, Budhaditya Deb, Ahmed Awadallah, Dragomir Radev, and Rui Zhang. 2022. Summn: A multi-stage summarization framework for long input dialogues and documents. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1592–1604, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8501" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ming Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. Extractive summarization as text matching. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6197-6208, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ming Zhong, Yang Liu, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2021a. Dialoglm: Pre-trained model for long dialogue understanding and summarization. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.25, + 0.49, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021b. QMSum: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905-5921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.391, + 0.49, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenguang Zhu, Ruochen Xu, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2020. A hierarchical network for abstractive meeting summarization with cross-domain pretraining. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 194–203, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.648, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.129, + 0.864, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: Why did the industrial designer disagree with the marketing when talking about some new ideas about future products?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.179, + 0.858, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gold: The marketing thought they should not trust too much the trend because it wouldn't last long - fruits and vegetables were in fashion this year but maybe next year it would be insects. However, the industrial designer believed it was good to follow the flow now and then since electronic devices were not long life products: if people changed, the product appearance should change as well." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.314, + 0.861, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous: Industrial Designer thought that it would be interesting to see if people would buy this one, and maybe add some features to it after. However, he thought it would not be very productive to go through all the process from the beginning to the end." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.407, + 0.87, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: The industrial designer thought it was good to follow the flow and make it now and after, if the people change their mind, you change also the product." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.609, + 0.48, + 0.639, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.641, + 0.481, + 0.771, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "About future trend" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8502" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.362, + 0.836, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Query: What did Barry Hughes think about the targets regarding performance measure?
Gold: Barry Hughes stated that they did not have targets and only prosecuted with reasonable prospects. As for the police, there were no targets for the police anymore, except for some individuals.
Previous: Barry Hughes thought that there was a shortage of registered intermediaries in Wales, and the Ministry of Justice had taken action to deal with that, and they had had a number of people who were now in a position to act as intermediaries. Now, of course, if they were to decide not to do that anymore, they may have a problem, but, in turn, they would be looking to recruit more people into those positions. So, it had the potential to serve as a barrier, but in practice, he didn't think it would be a barrier.
Ours: Barry Hughes thought that the police were much more sensible these days than they may have been 20 years ago, in terms of trying to get cases charged in order to meet some notional target. In the CPS, they did not have targets for securing convictions or not. Clearly, they prosecuted if they thought that there was a reasonable prospect, a realistic prospect, of conviction and it was in the public interest.
" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.359, + 0.617, + 0.386, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.39, + 0.618, + 0.606, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "About the performance measure" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8503" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.145, + 0.331, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Limitations section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.17, + 0.553, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.188, + 0.37, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Ethics Statement section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.696, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.231, + 0.357, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Abstract and Section 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.257, + 0.669, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.274, + 0.233, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.3, + 0.489, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.322, + 0.338, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yes, the References section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.347, + 0.53, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.365, + 0.355, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yes, the References section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.39, + 0.779, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.408, + 0.37, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Ethics Statement section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.433, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.499, + 0.331, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Limitations section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.524, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.574, + 0.37, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Ethics Statement section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.633, + 0.351, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.658, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.741, + 0.243, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.788, + 0.209, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Section 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.813, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.847, + 0.243, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.878, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8504" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.88, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? \nAppendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.88, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.293, + 0.878, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.4, + 0.88, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 3.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.474, + 0.88, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? The Ethics Statement section." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.593, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8505" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_origin.pdf b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4b050191bd6bcc9746220ee29fbbe33b79fac60 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/33cc5cd7-624d-47c2-b5d3-66683b229bd6_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a7025fc591c0c5a76fa15f8f2dbdc240372ffac6a4577f079c6374b19577e49b +size 855007 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/full.md b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddd5277e94a0b5a1cd7af6f3b89fabcf316fbf11 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,299 @@ +# Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization + +Xingxian Liu, Yajing Xu* + +Pattern Recognition & Intelligent System Laboratory + +Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China + +{liuxingxian,xyj}@bupt.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to generate a specific summary for the given query according to the meeting transcripts. Due to the conflict between long meetings and limited input size, previous works mainly adopt extract-then-summarize methods, which use extractors to simulate binary labels or ROUGE scores to extract utterances related to the query and then generate a summary. However, the previous approach fails to fully use the comparison between utterances. To the extractor, comparison orders are more important than specific scores. In this paper, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework. It learns to rank the utterances by comparing them in pairs and learning from the global orders, then uses top utterances as the generator's input. We show that learning to rank utterances helps to select utterances related to the query effectively, and the summarizer can benefit from it. Experimental results on QMSum show that the proposed model outperforms all existing multi-stage models with fewer parameters. + +# 1 Introduction + +Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to summarize the crucial information for the given query into a concise passage according to the meeting transcripts. By responding to the query, QFMS can meet the user's need to focus on a specific aspect or topic of the meeting (Litvak and Vanetik, 2017; Baumel et al., 2018). Unlike the generic summary, QFMS requires the summary depending on both the given query and meeting transcripts. + +Previous works consist of end-to-end and two-stage frameworks. The end-to-end models take the whole long meeting as the input. Although some works such as HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020) and HATBART (Rohde et al., 2021) use hierarchical attention mechanism to alleviate the rapid growth + +![](images/6a17aed49b6dca121d58287ea1a95d4cf097b09067b083d53863e1c0b99132d3.jpg) + +![](images/dc9ebf2a7a4109935e12ab73fb190f2cf90ca7a86756aeeb24a8942f8e79a5c6.jpg) +Figure 1: (a) Locator-Generator framework, it predicts a binary label and uses Cross-Entropy loss to update parameters. (b) Simulator-Generator framework, it simulates the ROUGE score and uses Mean Squared Error loss to update parameters. (c) Ranker-Generator framework proposed in this paper, it learns to rank utterances from the relative order between utterances. The top K utterances can be passed to the generator. + +in computational complexity, it's still faced with difficulties in training efficiency. The two-stage models extract utterances related to the query and then pass the concatenation of them to the generator. For QFMS, the key information related to the query scatters in certain parts of the meeting. Therefore, the two-stage framework is considered as a practical approach to balance experimental performance and computational efficiency in the long-input problems. + +The two-stage framework mainly includes the Locator-Generator and the Simulator-Generator approaches. As shown in Figure 1, in the first stage, the Locator-Generator (Zhong et al., 2021b) framework considers it as a binary classification task. It predicts a binary label of whether the utterance is relevant to the query and uses cross-entropy loss to update parameters. But the hard binary labels can not reflect the relative quality. Especially when the training data is limited by scarcity, the binary classification will have a large margin between positive and negative samples. So the Simulator-Generator (Vig et al., 2022) framework considers + +![](images/233e4bffecdd15a639924a0cf551d220aff6372704ca2b27f7c05c08a6a71c57.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall model structure + +it as a ROUGE score regression task. It simulates the ROUGE score and uses MSE loss to update parameters. However, there is a gap between the extractor's ultimate objective and the objective of minimizing the absolute error between predicted scores and ROUGE scores. In fact, rather than specific scores, we care more about the relative orders of utterances. + +To make full use of the comparison information between samples, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework in this paper. To balance experimental effectiveness and computational efficiency, the framework contains three steps. First, the utterances would be divided into samples. We conduct pairwise ranking to get an order for each sample. Second, the top utterances in different samples would be fed into the re-ranker, which would conduct listwise ranking to get a global order. Finally, the top K utterances would be concatenated and passed to the generator. + +To summarize, our contributions are as follows: (1) This paper demonstrates that, by enhancing the accuracy of extracting query-relevant utterances, the generator can make the summary more related to the query. (2) We propose a Ranker-Generator framework to extract query-relevant utterances by learning to rank discourse to improve the quality of the generated summaries. (3) Experimental results show that the proposed model outperforms existing multi-stage models with fewer model parameters. + +# 2 Method + +The architecture of our method is illustrated in Figure 2. Our model consists of a two-stage ranking step and a generating step. The utterances would be ranked by the Sample Pairwise Ranking module and the Global Listwise Re-ranking module, and top of them can be passed to the generator to produce the final summary. + +# 2.1 Two-Stage Ranking + +The utterance ranking orders for a brief meeting can be efficiently obtained using the single-stage ranking paradigm. However, the computing complexity of full-pairwise ranking grows at a square rate as the number of utterances grows. Therefore, we adopt a two-stage ranking framework. In the first stage, we propose sample pairwise ranking to reduce computational complexity. But sample pairwise ranking can only evaluate the relative quality within samples. It performs poorly when applied to utterances from various samples, e.g., the top utterances in sample 1 may be ranked lower in sample 2. To overcome the above problem, we apply global listwise re-ranking and concentrate on the top-k utterances in the second stage. Utterances that are unlikely to appear in the generator are filtered out by the pairwise ranking model, then global listwise ranking is conducted to get better top-k orders. + +# 2.2 Sample Pairwise Ranking + +In this paper, the ROUGE (Lin, 2004) scores between utterances $U$ and the gold summary $S^{*}$ are considered as the measure of query-relevance. The utterances from one meeting are divided into various samples. In one sample, the utterances would be ordered by the ROUGE scores. The ranker should be encouraged to assign higher relevance scores to these top utterances in the order. By learning to rank in pairwise, the model can distinguish the utterances that are more relevant to the query from the comparison. Following the previous work (Zhong et al., 2020), the loss is as follows: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} L = \sum_ {i} \sum_ {j > i} \max (0, f (U _ {j}) - f (U _ {i}) + \lambda_ {i j}) (1) \\ \lambda_ {i j} = (j - i) * \lambda (2) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $U_{i}$ and $U_{j}$ are the $i$ -th and $j$ -th utterances in gold ranking orders, + +$\mathrm{ROUGE}(U_i, S^*) > \mathrm{ROUGE}(U_j, S^*)$ , $\forall i, j, i < j$ , $\lambda$ is the base margin. $f(U_i)$ is the predicted query-relevance score given by a cross-encoder model. + +# 2.3 Global Listwise Re-ranking + +As shown in Figure 2, the top utterances in different samples are gathered in the re-ranking module. The gold orders would be determined by ranking the utterances according to the ROUGE scores. To obtain a more precise top-ranking order, we would perform a refined global sort on these top utterances from various samples using listwise re-ranking. Inspired by ListNet (Cao et al., 2007), we optimize the permutation probability distribution between predicted scores $s$ and the gold scores $s^*$ . The permutation probability is defined as + +$$ +P _ {s} (\pi) = \prod_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \frac {\phi \left(s _ {\pi (j)}\right)}{\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \phi \left(s _ {\pi (t)}\right)} \tag {3} +$$ + +$\pi$ is a permutation on the $\mathfrak{n}$ objects, and $\phi(.)$ is an increasing and strictly positive function. + +But different with ListNet, we optimize the top-k permutation probability rather than top-1 probability. The top-k permutation probability is as follows: + +$$ +P _ {s} ^ {k} (\pi) = \prod_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \frac {\phi \left(s _ {\pi (j)}\right)}{\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \phi \left(s _ {\pi (t)}\right)} \tag {4} +$$ + +For example, the top-3 permutation probability of $\pi = \langle 1,2,3,4,5\rangle$ is as follows: + +$$ +P _ {s} ^ {3} (\pi) = \frac {\phi (s _ {1})}{\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {5} \phi (s _ {i})} \cdot \frac {\phi (s _ {2})}{\sum_ {i = 2} ^ {5} \phi (s _ {i})} \cdot \frac {\phi (s _ {3})}{\sum_ {i = 3} ^ {5} \phi (s _ {i})} \tag {5} +$$ + +The predicted top1-to-topk distribution is $P_{s} = (P_{s}^{1}, P_{s}^{2}, \dots, P_{s}^{k})$ , the gold top1-to-topk distribution is $P_{s^{*}} = (P_{s^{*}}^{1}, P_{s^{*}}^{2}, \dots, P_{s^{*}}^{k})$ . We use KL-divergence to reduce the gap between the above two distributions. + +$$ +L = K L \left(P _ {s ^ {*}} | | P _ {s}\right) \tag {6} +$$ + +$$ +K L \left(P _ {s ^ {*}} \| P _ {s}\right) = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {k} P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i} \cdot \log \frac {P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i}}{P _ {s} ^ {i}} \tag {7} +$$ + +# 2.4 Generator + +As shown in Figure 2, after the two-stage ranking, top-k of the utterances would be concatenated and fed into the generator. In the generation stage, the objective is to minimize the cross-entropy loss: + +$$ +L = - \sum_ {i} p _ {g t} \left(S _ {i} \mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\right) \log p \left(S _ {i} \mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\right) \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +p _ {g t} \left(S _ {i} \mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} 1 & S _ {i} = S _ {i} ^ {*} \\ 0 & S _ {i} \neq S _ {i} ^ {*} \end{array} \right. \tag {9} +$$ + +$U$ is the generator's input, $S^{*}$ is the gold summary. + +# 3 Experiments + +# 3.1 Setup + +# 3.1.1 Implementation Details + +Models are implemented using the PyTorch framework. The pre-trained BART* from the Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library is used as the base abstractive model. The pre-trained MiniLM† from the sentence-transformers (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) library is used as the pairwise ranking model and the listwise re-ranking model. + +All experiments are conducted on NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU(24G memory). The generator model is trained for 10 epochs. For one model training, the average running time is around 2 hours. Weight hyperparameter $\lambda$ is 0.01 in Equation 2. The generator's max length of the input is 1024, max length of the output is 256. Learning rate is 5e-6. + +Models were evaluated using the ROUGE metrics (Lin, 2004) in the SummEval toolkit (Fabbri et al., 2021) and each pair of results was subjected to t-test to confirm the effectiveness of our method. + +# 3.1.2 Datasets Details + +QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b) is a query-focused meeting summarization dataset consisting of 1,808 query-summary pairs over 232 meetings from product design, academic, and political committee meetings. Additionally, QMSum contains manual annotations such as topic segmentation and relevant spans related to the reference summary. + +# 3.1.3 Baselines Details + +We compare the proposed method with several baselines. TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004) is an extractive summarization method with a graph-based ranking model. PGNet (See et al., 2017) uses pointer mechanism to copy tokens from source texts. BART (Lewis et al., 2020) is a pre-trained encoder-decoder Transformer model with a denoising objective, which achieves advanced performance on several summarization datasets(i.e. CNN/DailyMail (Hermann et al., 2015) and Xsum + +
ModelsROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-LExtractor Size(M)
TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004)16.272.6915.41-
PGNet (See et al., 2017)28.745.9825.13-
BART (Lewis et al., 2020)29.206.3725.49-
LEAD + BART32.069.6727.93-
HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020)32.298.6728.17-
Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020)34.1810.3229.95-
DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a)33.699.3230.01-
SUMMN (Zhang et al., 2022)34.039.2829.48-
DYLE (Mao et al., 2022)34.429.7130.10501
Pointer Network + PGNet (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.378.4727.08440
Pointer Network + BART (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.748.5328.21440
RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022)33.0210.1728.90329
RELREG (Vig et al., 2022)34.9111.9130.731372
Oracle43.8019.6339.10
Locator-Generator31.47(-3.77)8.53(-3.70)28.21(-3.07)134
Simulator-Generator32.92(-2.59)9.46(-2.77)28.93(-2.35)134
Ranker-Generator35.5112.2331.28134
RankSUM(w/o re-ranking)33.02(-2.49)9.73(-2.50)29.15(-2.13)134
+ +Table 1: ROUGE-F1 scores for different models on QMSum dataset. + +
ModelsTop 5Top 10
R-1R-2R-LR-1R-2R-L
Gold26.327.5824.4320.555.1519.29
LEAD11.150.9910.1712.111.1111.10
RELREG18.022.4615.3015.022.3513.23
Locator16.892.2413.9714.101.9712.75
Simulator17.062.3614.8814.442.1413.06
Ours20.073.6917.7817.083.0115.48
+ +Table 2: ROUGE-F1 scores between the gold summary and top-5/top-10 utterances for different models on QM-Sum. + +(Narayan et al., 2018)). LEAD+BART uses the beginning utterances as the BART's input. HM-Net (Zhu et al., 2020) uses a hierarchical attention mechanism and cross-domain pre-training for meeting summarization. Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) replaces the quadratic self-attention mechanism with a combination of local attention and sparse global attention. DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a) is a pre-train model using intra-window denoising self-reconstruction pre-training task and intra-block inter-block mixing attention. SUMM $^N$ (Zhang et al., 2022) is a multi-stage summarization framework for the long-input summarization task. DYLE (Mao et al., 2022) treats the extracted text snippets as the latent variable and jointly trains the extractor and the generator. Point Network+PGNet and Point Network+BART (Zhong et al., 2021b) adopt a two-stage approach of locate-then-summarize for long meeting summarization. RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022) and RELREG (Vig et al., 2022) considers extracting as a ROUGE regression model using bi-encoder and cross-encoder. + +# 3.2 Results & Analysis + +The ROUGE score (Lin, 2004) is adopted as the evaluation metric. The performances of our method and baselines are summarized in Table 1. Experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms the baselines $(p < 0.05)$ on QMSum dataset with fewer parameters. + +To have a fair comparison among the three frameworks, we design an experiment to evaluate the performance of these frameworks using the same backbone as the extractor and the same generator. The experimental results show that the proposed model significantly outperforms Locator-Generator and Simulator-Generator, which demonstrates that the ranker can obtain meeting utterances that are more suitable for the generator by learning to rank utterances. + +To verify the effectiveness of the two-stage ranking paradigm, we conduct an ablation experiment. Our model significantly outperforms the model without re-ranking module $(p < 0.05)$ . Experimental results show that the model without re-ranking module reduces 2.49 ROUGE-1, 2.50 ROUGE-2, 2.13 ROUGE-L scores, which demonstrates the importance of the re-ranking module. By listwise ranking, we can get a more precise top-ranking order. + +We have an interesting observation. Unlike the ROUGE score regression model, the ranker is less sensitive to the model size. We believe this is because learning the relative order by comparison is easier than fitting ROUGE scores separately. It reduces the ranker's reliance on the model size by + +
ModelsFlu.QR.FC.
Gold4.884.904.92
BART4.483.783.64
RELREG4.514.124.07
Locator-Generator4.453.903.83
Simulator-Generator4.484.014.02
Ours4.524.404.21
+ +Table 3: Human evaluation on Fluency (Flu.), Query Relevance (QR.) and Factual Consistency (FC.) for QM-Sum. + +making full use of the comparison between samples. As a training task for extractors, learning to rank is a more suitable objective. Since to the extractor, it is the relative order that matters rather than the absolute error in fitting the ROUGE score. + +# 3.3 Extractor Performance + +We conduct experiments to evaluate the performance of the extractor, which help to explore the impact of the extractor on the quality of the generated summaries. The lexical overlap metric between the extracted utterances and the gold summary is used to measure the relevance of the meeting utterances to the summary/query. The experimental results show that the ranker significantly outperforms the baselines in extracting relevant utterances. It demonstrates that by learning to rank utterances, the ranker is able to extract the utterances that are more relevant to the summary/query. + +# 3.4 Human Evaluation + +We further conduct a manual evaluation to assess the models. We randomly select 50 samples from QMSum and ask 5 professional linguistic evaluators to score the ground truth and summaries generated by 5 models according to 3 metrics: fluency, query relevance and factual consistency. Each metric is rated from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) and the scores for each summary are averaged. + +As shown in Table 3, the proposed model significantly outperforms all the baselines on query relevance, which benefits from the extractor's improvement on selecting the relevant utterances. Besides, the factual consistency score is also improved. We think that by comparing the relevance between utterances and the summary/query, the top utterances are more relevant to each other, which may help to improve factual consistency. In the aspect of fluency, the proposed model has only slight improvement compared to the baselines. + +# 4 Conclusion + +This paper proposes a new multi-stage framework for QFMS. It learns to rank the meeting utterances by pairwise and listwise comparison between them. By selecting the utterances with high query-relevance scores as the generator's input, the generator can produce high-quality summaries that are more relevant to the query. The experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the Ranker-Generator framework. + +# 5 Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by MoE-CMCC "Artificial Intelligence" Project No. MCM20190701 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC No.62076031). + +We thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback and helpful suggestions. + +# Limitations + +This paper mainly focuses on the Query-focused Meeting Summarization(QFMS) task. Besides, We have explored the performance of the Ranker-Generator framework on the long-input summarization task. But the results do not show a significant improvement. Although QMSum dataset is also faced with the long-input challenge, the QFMS task only summarizes specific parts of the original text, so it can take these parts as the input. While the goal of the long-input summarization task is to generate an overall summary, which needs to have a global view on the original text. So we think the extract-then-generate framework is unsuitable for the long-input summarization task. The previous work $\mathrm{SUMM}^N$ (Zhang et al., 2022) is more suitable for the long-input summarization task. + +In addition, the multi-stage approach has a performance disadvantage over the end-to-end approach. However, the computational complexity of the multi-stage approach is much lower than that of the end-to-end approach. The multi-stage approach can balance experimental performance and computational complexity. So it is worthy of exploration as well as the end-to-end approach. + +# Ethics Statement + +In this paper, all experiments are conducted on QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b), which is open-source and obeys MIT license. The meeting transcripts data doesn't contain any privacy information(such + +as password, phone number and trade secrets) or offensive content. + +# References + +Tal Baumel, Matan Eyal, and Michael Elhadad. 2018. Query focused abstractive summarization: Incorporating query relevance, multi-document coverage, and summary length constraints into seq2seq models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07704. +Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv:2004.05150. +Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In International Conference on Machine Learning. +Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysciński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391-409. +Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marina Litvak and Natalia Vanetik. 2017. Query-based summarization using MDL principle. In Proceedings of the MultiLing 2017 Workshop on Summarization and Summary Evaluation Across Source Types and Genres, pages 22-31, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Ansong Ni, Yusen Zhang, Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Budhaditya Deb, Chenguang Zhu, Ahmed Awadallah, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. DYLE: Dynamic latent extraction for abstractive long-input summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1687-1698, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1797-1807, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tobias Rohde, Xiaoxia Wu, and Yinhan Liu. 2021. Hierarchical learning for generation with long source sequences. ArXiv, abs/2104.07545. +Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jesse Vig, Alexander Fabbri, Wojciech Kryscinski, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Wenhao Liu. 2022. Exploring neural models for query-focused summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 1455-1468, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yusen Zhang, Ansong Ni, Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Chenguang Zhu, Budhaditya Deb, Ahmed Awadallah, Dragomir Radev, and Rui Zhang. 2022. Summn: A multi-stage summarization framework for long input dialogues and documents. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1592–1604, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Ming Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. Extractive summarization as text matching. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6197-6208, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Ming Zhong, Yang Liu, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2021a. Dialoglm: Pre-trained model for long dialogue understanding and summarization. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. + +Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021b. QMSum: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905-5921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Chenguang Zhu, Ruochen Xu, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2020. A hierarchical network for abstractive meeting summarization with cross-domain pretraining. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 194–203, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Case Study + +Query: Why did the industrial designer disagree with the marketing when talking about some new ideas about future products? + +Gold: The marketing thought they should not trust too much the trend because it wouldn't last long - fruits and vegetables were in fashion this year but maybe next year it would be insects. However, the industrial designer believed it was good to follow the flow now and then since electronic devices were not long life products: if people changed, the product appearance should change as well. + +Previous: Industrial Designer thought that it would be interesting to see if people would buy this one, and maybe add some features to it after. However, he thought it would not be very productive to go through all the process from the beginning to the end. + +Ours: The industrial designer thought it was good to follow the flow and make it now and after, if the people change their mind, you change also the product. + +![](images/242f6a4fdab28e8d750df2d6421d6fb097720f86886dfdb1d67c0ff673ca8a5a.jpg) + +About future trend + +
Query: What did Barry Hughes think about the targets regarding performance measure?
Gold: Barry Hughes stated that they did not have targets and only prosecuted with reasonable prospects. As for the police, there were no targets for the police anymore, except for some individuals.
Previous: Barry Hughes thought that there was a shortage of registered intermediaries in Wales, and the Ministry of Justice had taken action to deal with that, and they had had a number of people who were now in a position to act as intermediaries. Now, of course, if they were to decide not to do that anymore, they may have a problem, but, in turn, they would be looking to recruit more people into those positions. So, it had the potential to serve as a barrier, but in practice, he didn't think it would be a barrier.
Ours: Barry Hughes thought that the police were much more sensible these days than they may have been 20 years ago, in terms of trying to get cases charged in order to meet some notional target. In the CPS, they did not have targets for securing convictions or not. Clearly, they prosecuted if they thought that there was a reasonable prospect, a realistic prospect, of conviction and it was in the public interest.
+ +![](images/cb47a10a83f441bdd1494d5961cd59cb818872b453dfd604070b5f152d1b58f5.jpg) + +About the performance measure + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? + +The Limitations section. + +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? + +The Ethics Statement section. + +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? + +The Abstract and Section 1. + +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? + +Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Yes, the References section. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? + +Yes, the References section. + +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? + +The Ethics Statement section. + +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? + +The Limitations section. + +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? + +The Ethics Statement section. + +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? + +Not applicable. Left blank. + +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. + +Appendix B. + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +Section 3. + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? + +Appendix A. + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A. +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? +Appendix A. +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix A. + +D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3.4. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 3.4. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? The Ethics Statement section. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/images.zip b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3667354ccb6c6228e37228392df7d0e5ea80d834 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f06e19ac43bfea539978db181ad4bf3b30aadb07646b5cf98813fd2ab176148c +size 411259 diff --git a/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/layout.json b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6807897b9f86f347b4dcae17ea2d173f056fece5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,6339 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 76, + 523, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 76, + 523, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 76, + 523, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning to Rank Utterances for Query-Focused Meeting Summarization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 116, + 366, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 116, + 366, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 116, + 366, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xingxian Liu, Yajing Xu*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 130, + 426, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 130, + 426, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 130, + 426, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pattern Recognition & Intelligent System Laboratory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 143, + 464, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 143, + 464, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 143, + 464, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 158, + 403, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 158, + 403, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 158, + 403, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{liuxingxian,xyj}@bupt.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to generate a specific summary for the given query according to the meeting transcripts. Due to the conflict between long meetings and limited input size, previous works mainly adopt extract-then-summarize methods, which use extractors to simulate binary labels or ROUGE scores to extract utterances related to the query and then generate a summary. However, the previous approach fails to fully use the comparison between utterances. To the extractor, comparison orders are more important than specific scores. In this paper, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework. It learns to rank the utterances by comparing them in pairs and learning from the global orders, then uses top utterances as the generator's input. We show that learning to rank utterances helps to select utterances related to the query effectively, and the summarizer can benefit from it. Experimental results on QMSum show that the proposed model outperforms all existing multi-stage models with fewer parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 154, + 530 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 154, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 154, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 290, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 290, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 290, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query-focused meeting summarization(QFMS) aims to summarize the crucial information for the given query into a concise passage according to the meeting transcripts. By responding to the query, QFMS can meet the user's need to focus on a specific aspect or topic of the meeting (Litvak and Vanetik, 2017; Baumel et al., 2018). Unlike the generic summary, QFMS requires the summary depending on both the given query and meeting transcripts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 290, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 290, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 290, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous works consist of end-to-end and two-stage frameworks. The end-to-end models take the whole long meeting as the input. Although some works such as HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020) and HATBART (Rohde et al., 2021) use hierarchical attention mechanism to alleviate the rapid growth" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 535, + 274 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 535, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 535, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 535, + 274 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6a17aed49b6dca121d58287ea1a95d4cf097b09067b083d53863e1c0b99132d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 533, + 335 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 533, + 335 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 533, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 533, + 335 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dc9ebf2a7a4109935e12ab73fb190f2cf90ca7a86756aeeb24a8942f8e79a5c6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 527, + 441 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 527, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 527, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: (a) Locator-Generator framework, it predicts a binary label and uses Cross-Entropy loss to update parameters. (b) Simulator-Generator framework, it simulates the ROUGE score and uses Mean Squared Error loss to update parameters. (c) Ranker-Generator framework proposed in this paper, it learns to rank utterances from the relative order between utterances. The top K utterances can be passed to the generator." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in computational complexity, it's still faced with difficulties in training efficiency. The two-stage models extract utterances related to the query and then pass the concatenation of them to the generator. For QFMS, the key information related to the query scatters in certain parts of the meeting. Therefore, the two-stage framework is considered as a practical approach to balance experimental performance and computational efficiency in the long-input problems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The two-stage framework mainly includes the Locator-Generator and the Simulator-Generator approaches. As shown in Figure 1, in the first stage, the Locator-Generator (Zhong et al., 2021b) framework considers it as a binary classification task. It predicts a binary label of whether the utterance is relevant to the query and uses cross-entropy loss to update parameters. But the hard binary labels can not reflect the relative quality. Especially when the training data is limited by scarcity, the binary classification will have a large margin between positive and negative samples. So the Simulator-Generator (Vig et al., 2022) framework considers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 226, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 226, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 226, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Yajing Xu is the corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8496" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 795, + 457, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 8496-8505" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 806, + 416, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 533, + 199 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 533, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 533, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 533, + 199 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "233e4bffecdd15a639924a0cf551d220aff6372704ca2b27f7c05c08a6a71c57.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 206, + 374, + 219 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 206, + 374, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 206, + 374, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall model structure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 290, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 290, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 290, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "it as a ROUGE score regression task. It simulates the ROUGE score and uses MSE loss to update parameters. However, there is a gap between the extractor's ultimate objective and the objective of minimizing the absolute error between predicted scores and ROUGE scores. In fact, rather than specific scores, we care more about the relative orders of utterances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To make full use of the comparison information between samples, we propose a Ranker-Generator framework in this paper. To balance experimental effectiveness and computational efficiency, the framework contains three steps. First, the utterances would be divided into samples. We conduct pairwise ranking to get an order for each sample. Second, the top utterances in different samples would be fed into the re-ranker, which would conduct listwise ranking to get a global order. Finally, the top K utterances would be concatenated and passed to the generator." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To summarize, our contributions are as follows: (1) This paper demonstrates that, by enhancing the accuracy of extracting query-relevant utterances, the generator can make the summary more related to the query. (2) We propose a Ranker-Generator framework to extract query-relevant utterances by learning to rank discourse to improve the quality of the generated summaries. (3) Experimental results show that the proposed model outperforms existing multi-stage models with fewer model parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 130, + 668 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 130, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 130, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The architecture of our method is illustrated in Figure 2. Our model consists of a two-stage ranking step and a generating step. The utterances would be ranked by the Sample Pairwise Ranking module and the Global Listwise Re-ranking module, and top of them can be passed to the generator to produce the final summary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 424, + 253 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 424, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 424, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Two-Stage Ranking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 527, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 527, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 527, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The utterance ranking orders for a brief meeting can be efficiently obtained using the single-stage ranking paradigm. However, the computing complexity of full-pairwise ranking grows at a square rate as the number of utterances grows. Therefore, we adopt a two-stage ranking framework. In the first stage, we propose sample pairwise ranking to reduce computational complexity. But sample pairwise ranking can only evaluate the relative quality within samples. It performs poorly when applied to utterances from various samples, e.g., the top utterances in sample 1 may be ranked lower in sample 2. To overcome the above problem, we apply global listwise re-ranking and concentrate on the top-k utterances in the second stage. Utterances that are unlikely to appear in the generator are filtered out by the pairwise ranking model, then global listwise ranking is conducted to get better top-k orders." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 452, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 452, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 510, + 452, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Sample Pairwise Ranking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 527, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 527, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 527, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, the ROUGE (Lin, 2004) scores between utterances " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 527, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 527, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the gold summary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 527, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 527, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are considered as the measure of query-relevance. The utterances from one meeting are divided into various samples. In one sample, the utterances would be ordered by the ROUGE scores. The ranker should be encouraged to assign higher relevance scores to these top utterances in the order. By learning to rank in pairwise, the model can distinguish the utterances that are more relevant to the query from the comparison. Following the previous work (Zhong et al., 2020), the loss is as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 698, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 698, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 698, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} L = \\sum_ {i} \\sum_ {j > i} \\max (0, f (U _ {j}) - f (U _ {i}) + \\lambda_ {i j}) (1) \\\\ \\lambda_ {i j} = (j - i) * \\lambda (2) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "9ef9099453699bb7e73ab270d6806b2d26d75e41c79847596235f5d9e01f17f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th utterances in gold ranking orders," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8497" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{ROUGE}(U_i, S^*) > \\mathrm{ROUGE}(U_j, S^*)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\forall i, j, i < j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the base margin. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f(U_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the predicted query-relevance score given by a cross-encoder model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 225, + 147 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 225, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 225, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Global Listwise Re-ranking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 291, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, the top utterances in different samples are gathered in the re-ranking module. The gold orders would be determined by ranking the utterances according to the ROUGE scores. To obtain a more precise top-ranking order, we would perform a refined global sort on these top utterances from various samples using listwise re-ranking. Inspired by ListNet (Cao et al., 2007), we optimize the permutation probability distribution between predicted scores " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the gold scores " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The permutation probability is defined as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 307, + 290, + 342 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 307, + 290, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 307, + 290, + 342 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P _ {s} (\\pi) = \\prod_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (j)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (t)}\\right)} \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "90f33fdd0236962d5c3ba520ef24c558bbfc90aafc0034e8e175b63c13d729cb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a permutation on the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathfrak{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " objects, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi(.)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 289, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an increasing and strictly positive function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 377, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 377, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 377, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "But different with ListNet, we optimize the top-k permutation probability rather than top-1 probability. The top-k permutation probability is as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 425, + 290, + 461 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 425, + 290, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 425, + 290, + 461 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P _ {s} ^ {k} (\\pi) = \\prod_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\frac {\\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (j)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {t = j} ^ {n} \\phi \\left(s _ {\\pi (t)}\\right)} \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "1b5a80626884d059fe347b8e8a91efc40c21843d5b35c49c0f1d48b2f7616cd8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For example, the top-3 permutation probability of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 495 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi = \\langle 1,2,3,4,5\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 502, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 502, + 290, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 502, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P _ {s} ^ {3} (\\pi) = \\frac {\\phi (s _ {1})}{\\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\cdot \\frac {\\phi (s _ {2})}{\\sum_ {i = 2} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\cdot \\frac {\\phi (s _ {3})}{\\sum_ {i = 3} ^ {5} \\phi (s _ {i})} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "6d36b75d77dc7c0fcb114c0932fa4ee5026170d5e09d6d1a907412c623bfa2f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The predicted top1-to-topk distribution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{s} = (P_{s}^{1}, P_{s}^{2}, \\dots, P_{s}^{k})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the gold top1-to-topk distribution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{s^{*}} = (P_{s^{*}}^{1}, P_{s^{*}}^{2}, \\dots, P_{s^{*}}^{k})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We use KL-divergence to reduce the gap between the above two distributions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 609, + 290, + 624 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 609, + 290, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 609, + 290, + 624 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L = K L \\left(P _ {s ^ {*}} | | P _ {s}\\right) \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "3c50d5774c2741736cbc6600b0c9c92d85baeae5e73ce71a6e921bf03c6987ad.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 628, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 628, + 290, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 628, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "K L \\left(P _ {s ^ {*}} \\| P _ {s}\\right) = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {k} P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i} \\cdot \\log \\frac {P _ {s ^ {*}} ^ {i}}{P _ {s} ^ {i}} \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "0ba5dd431f080303acb22cd8d464654e2964850cf9fd42b9fbe89b84e2294bcb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 145, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 145, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 145, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.4 Generator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, after the two-stage ranking, top-k of the utterances would be concatenated and fed into the generator. In the generation stage, the objective is to minimize the cross-entropy loss:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 748, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 748, + 290, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 748, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L = - \\sum_ {i} p _ {g t} \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) \\log p \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "7d857f0b89583e13cf532de82474981e15b49a65d462e790acdca8a3c13ca102.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 81, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 81, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 81, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p _ {g t} \\left(S _ {i} \\mid S _ {< i} ^ {*}, U\\right) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} 1 & S _ {i} = S _ {i} ^ {*} \\\\ 0 & S _ {i} \\neq S _ {i} ^ {*} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "60fb97efd094af75ed08600347be39987069afa33f1f68cc48bbde407c674ccf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the generator's input, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 525, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the gold summary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 390, + 158 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 390, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 145, + 390, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 358, + 179 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 358, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 358, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 449, + 198 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 449, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 449, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.1 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models are implemented using the PyTorch framework. The pre-trained BART* from the Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library is used as the base abstractive model. The pre-trained MiniLM† from the sentence-transformers (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) library is used as the pairwise ranking model and the listwise re-ranking model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All experiments are conducted on NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU(24G memory). The generator model is trained for 10 epochs. For one model training, the average running time is around 2 hours. Weight hyperparameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is 0.01 in Equation 2. The generator's max length of the input is 1024, max length of the output is 256. Learning rate is 5e-6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models were evaluated using the ROUGE metrics (Lin, 2004) in the SummEval toolkit (Fabbri et al., 2021) and each pair of results was subjected to t-test to confirm the effectiveness of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 414, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 414, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 414, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.2 Datasets Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b) is a query-focused meeting summarization dataset consisting of 1,808 query-summary pairs over 232 meetings from product design, academic, and political committee meetings. Additionally, QMSum contains manual annotations such as topic segmentation and relevant spans related to the reference summary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 417, + 584 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 417, + 584 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 417, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.3 Baselines Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 526, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 526, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 526, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the proposed method with several baselines. TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004) is an extractive summarization method with a graph-based ranking model. PGNet (See et al., 2017) uses pointer mechanism to copy tokens from source texts. BART (Lewis et al., 2020) is a pre-trained encoder-decoder Transformer model with a denoising objective, which achieves advanced performance on several summarization datasets(i.e. CNN/DailyMail (Hermann et al., 2015) and Xsum" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*The checkpoint is \"facebook/bart-large\", containing around 400M parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The checkpoint is \"cross-encoder/ms-marco-MiniLM-L12-v2\", containing around 134M parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8498" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 483, + 266 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 483, + 266 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 483, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 483, + 266 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsROUGE-1ROUGE-2ROUGE-LExtractor Size(M)
TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004)16.272.6915.41-
PGNet (See et al., 2017)28.745.9825.13-
BART (Lewis et al., 2020)29.206.3725.49-
LEAD + BART32.069.6727.93-
HMNet (Zhu et al., 2020)32.298.6728.17-
Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020)34.1810.3229.95-
DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a)33.699.3230.01-
SUMMN (Zhang et al., 2022)34.039.2829.48-
DYLE (Mao et al., 2022)34.429.7130.10501
Pointer Network + PGNet (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.378.4727.08440
Pointer Network + BART (Zhong et al., 2021b)31.748.5328.21440
RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022)33.0210.1728.90329
RELREG (Vig et al., 2022)34.9111.9130.731372
Oracle43.8019.6339.10
Locator-Generator31.47(-3.77)8.53(-3.70)28.21(-3.07)134
Simulator-Generator32.92(-2.59)9.46(-2.77)28.93(-2.35)134
Ranker-Generator35.5112.2331.28134
RankSUM(w/o re-ranking)33.02(-2.49)9.73(-2.50)29.15(-2.13)134
", + "image_path": "a53ae1dcd850066cf5cab90df39fcfa76388f61143ac93064850c1f4e9e7ded7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 307, + 276, + 394 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 275, + 436, + 287 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 275, + 436, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 275, + 436, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: ROUGE-F1 scores for different models on QMSum dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 307, + 276, + 394 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 307, + 276, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 307, + 276, + 394 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsTop 5Top 10
R-1R-2R-LR-1R-2R-L
Gold26.327.5824.4320.555.1519.29
LEAD11.150.9910.1712.111.1111.10
RELREG18.022.4615.3015.022.3513.23
Locator16.892.2413.9714.101.9712.75
Simulator17.062.3614.8814.442.1413.06
Ours20.073.6917.7817.083.0115.48
", + "image_path": "e0456bc8e7d1d2164d4e8fb014da7b701029179e0eed0d1e41992c154f7f3dcb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 437 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: ROUGE-F1 scores between the gold summary and top-5/top-10 utterances for different models on QM-Sum." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(Narayan et al., 2018)). LEAD+BART uses the beginning utterances as the BART's input. HM-Net (Zhu et al., 2020) uses a hierarchical attention mechanism and cross-domain pre-training for meeting summarization. Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) replaces the quadratic self-attention mechanism with a combination of local attention and sparse global attention. DialogLM (Zhong et al., 2021a) is a pre-train model using intra-window denoising self-reconstruction pre-training task and intra-block inter-block mixing attention. SUMM" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Zhang et al., 2022) is a multi-stage summarization framework for the long-input summarization task. DYLE (Mao et al., 2022) treats the extracted text snippets as the latent variable and jointly trains the extractor and the generator. Point Network+PGNet and Point Network+BART (Zhong et al., 2021b) adopt a two-stage approach of locate-then-summarize for long meeting summarization. RELREG-TT (Vig et al., 2022) and RELREG (Vig et al., 2022) considers extracting as a ROUGE regression model using bi-encoder and cross-encoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 310, + 420, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 310, + 420, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 310, + 420, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Results & Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ROUGE score (Lin, 2004) is adopted as the evaluation metric. The performances of our method and baselines are summarized in Table 1. Experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms the baselines " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 0.05)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on QMSum dataset with fewer parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 526, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 526, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 526, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To have a fair comparison among the three frameworks, we design an experiment to evaluate the performance of these frameworks using the same backbone as the extractor and the same generator. The experimental results show that the proposed model significantly outperforms Locator-Generator and Simulator-Generator, which demonstrates that the ranker can obtain meeting utterances that are more suitable for the generator by learning to rank utterances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To verify the effectiveness of the two-stage ranking paradigm, we conduct an ablation experiment. Our model significantly outperforms the model without re-ranking module " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 688 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 0.05)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Experimental results show that the model without re-ranking module reduces 2.49 ROUGE-1, 2.50 ROUGE-2, 2.13 ROUGE-L scores, which demonstrates the importance of the re-ranking module. By listwise ranking, we can get a more precise top-ranking order." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We have an interesting observation. Unlike the ROUGE score regression model, the ranker is less sensitive to the model size. We believe this is because learning the relative order by comparison is easier than fitting ROUGE scores separately. It reduces the ranker's reliance on the model size by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8499" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 158 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 158 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsFlu.QR.FC.
Gold4.884.904.92
BART4.483.783.64
RELREG4.514.124.07
Locator-Generator4.453.903.83
Simulator-Generator4.484.014.02
Ours4.524.404.21
", + "image_path": "1468e8fa92dd039c901a505e819ddd25fbd608a3e4472da19bef4a5e2f3c4796.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 202 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Human evaluation on Fluency (Flu.), Query Relevance (QR.) and Factual Consistency (FC.) for QM-Sum." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 225, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 225, + 291, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 225, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "making full use of the comparison between samples. As a training task for extractors, learning to rank is a more suitable objective. Since to the extractor, it is the relative order that matters rather than the absolute error in fitting the ROUGE score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 205, + 317 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 205, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 205, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Extractor Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct experiments to evaluate the performance of the extractor, which help to explore the impact of the extractor on the quality of the generated summaries. The lexical overlap metric between the extracted utterances and the gold summary is used to measure the relevance of the meeting utterances to the summary/query. The experimental results show that the ranker significantly outperforms the baselines in extracting relevant utterances. It demonstrates that by learning to rank utterances, the ranker is able to extract the utterances that are more relevant to the summary/query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 185, + 508 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 185, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 185, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Human Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further conduct a manual evaluation to assess the models. We randomly select 50 samples from QMSum and ask 5 professional linguistic evaluators to score the ground truth and summaries generated by 5 models according to 3 metrics: fluency, query relevance and factual consistency. Each metric is rated from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) and the scores for each summary are averaged." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Table 3, the proposed model significantly outperforms all the baselines on query relevance, which benefits from the extractor's improvement on selecting the relevant utterances. Besides, the factual consistency score is also improved. We think that by comparing the relevance between utterances and the summary/query, the top utterances are more relevant to each other, which may help to improve factual consistency. In the aspect of fluency, the proposed model has only slight improvement compared to the baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper proposes a new multi-stage framework for QFMS. It learns to rank the meeting utterances by pairwise and listwise comparison between them. By selecting the utterances with high query-relevance scores as the generator's input, the generator can produce high-quality summaries that are more relevant to the query. The experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the Ranker-Generator framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 423, + 238 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 423, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 423, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 525, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by MoE-CMCC \"Artificial Intelligence\" Project No. MCM20190701 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC No.62076031)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback and helpful suggestions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 365, + 351 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 365, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 365, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper mainly focuses on the Query-focused Meeting Summarization(QFMS) task. Besides, We have explored the performance of the Ranker-Generator framework on the long-input summarization task. But the results do not show a significant improvement. Although QMSum dataset is also faced with the long-input challenge, the QFMS task only summarizes specific parts of the original text, so it can take these parts as the input. While the goal of the long-input summarization task is to generate an overall summary, which needs to have a global view on the original text. So we think the extract-then-generate framework is unsuitable for the long-input summarization task. The previous work " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SUMM}^N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Zhang et al., 2022) is more suitable for the long-input summarization task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, the multi-stage approach has a performance disadvantage over the end-to-end approach. However, the computational complexity of the multi-stage approach is much lower than that of the end-to-end approach. The multi-stage approach can balance experimental performance and computational complexity. So it is worthy of exploration as well as the end-to-end approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 394, + 709 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 394, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 394, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, all experiments are conducted on QMSum (Zhong et al., 2021b), which is open-source and obeys MIT license. The meeting transcripts data doesn't contain any privacy information(such" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8500" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "as password, phone number and trade secrets) or offensive content." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 121, + 127, + 134 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 121, + 127, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 121, + 127, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 141, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 141, + 291, + 198 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 141, + 291, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 141, + 291, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tal Baumel, Matan Eyal, and Michael Elhadad. 2018. Query focused abstractive summarization: Incorporating query relevance, multi-document coverage, and summary length constraints into seq2seq models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07704." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 290, + 240 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 290, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 290, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv:2004.05150." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 290, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In International Conference on Machine Learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 303, + 290, + 359 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 303, + 290, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 303, + 290, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysciński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391-409." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 369, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 369, + 290, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 369, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 534 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 543, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 543, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 543, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marina Litvak and Natalia Vanetik. 2017. Query-based summarization using MDL principle. In Proceedings of the MultiLing 2017 Workshop on Summarization and Summary Evaluation Across Source Types and Genres, pages 22-31, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Ansong Ni, Yusen Zhang, Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Budhaditya Deb, Chenguang Zhu, Ahmed Awadallah, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. DYLE: Dynamic latent extraction for abstractive long-input summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1687-1698, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 128 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 526, + 215 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 526, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 526, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1797-1807, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 526, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 318, + 526, + 353 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 318, + 526, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 318, + 526, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tobias Rohde, Xiaoxia Wu, and Yinhan Liu. 2021. Hierarchical learning for generation with long source sequences. ArXiv, abs/2104.07545." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 360, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 360, + 526, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 360, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 446, + 526, + 524 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 446, + 526, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 446, + 526, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jesse Vig, Alexander Fabbri, Wojciech Kryscinski, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Wenhao Liu. 2022. Exploring neural models for query-focused summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 1455-1468, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 532, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 532, + 526, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 532, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 672, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 672, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 672, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yusen Zhang, Ansong Ni, Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Chenguang Zhu, Budhaditya Deb, Ahmed Awadallah, Dragomir Radev, and Rui Zhang. 2022. Summn: A multi-stage summarization framework for long input dialogues and documents. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1592–1604, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8501" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ming Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. Extractive summarization as text matching. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6197-6208, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ming Zhong, Yang Liu, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2021a. Dialoglm: Pre-trained model for long dialogue understanding and summarization. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 291, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 291, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 291, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021b. QMSum: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905-5921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenguang Zhu, Ruochen Xu, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2020. A hierarchical network for abstractive meeting summarization with cross-domain pretraining. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 194–203, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 385, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 385, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 385, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 108, + 514, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 108, + 514, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 108, + 514, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: Why did the industrial designer disagree with the marketing when talking about some new ideas about future products?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 150, + 510, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 150, + 510, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 150, + 510, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gold: The marketing thought they should not trust too much the trend because it wouldn't last long - fruits and vegetables were in fashion this year but maybe next year it would be insects. However, the industrial designer believed it was good to follow the flow now and then since electronic devices were not long life products: if people changed, the product appearance should change as well." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 264, + 512, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 264, + 512, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 264, + 512, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous: Industrial Designer thought that it would be interesting to see if people would buy this one, and maybe add some features to it after. However, he thought it would not be very productive to go through all the process from the beginning to the end." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 342, + 517, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 342, + 517, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 342, + 517, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: The industrial designer thought it was good to follow the flow and make it now and after, if the people change their mind, you change also the product." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 362, + 403, + 380, + 416 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 362, + 403, + 380, + 416 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 362, + 403, + 380, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 362, + 403, + 380, + 416 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "242f6a4fdab28e8d750df2d6421d6fb097720f86886dfdb1d67c0ff673ca8a5a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 381, + 404, + 458, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 381, + 404, + 458, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 381, + 404, + 458, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "About future trend" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8502" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 304, + 497, + 502 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 304, + 497, + 502 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 304, + 497, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 304, + 497, + 502 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Query: What did Barry Hughes think about the targets regarding performance measure?
Gold: Barry Hughes stated that they did not have targets and only prosecuted with reasonable prospects. As for the police, there were no targets for the police anymore, except for some individuals.
Previous: Barry Hughes thought that there was a shortage of registered intermediaries in Wales, and the Ministry of Justice had taken action to deal with that, and they had had a number of people who were now in a position to act as intermediaries. Now, of course, if they were to decide not to do that anymore, they may have a problem, but, in turn, they would be looking to recruit more people into those positions. So, it had the potential to serve as a barrier, but in practice, he didn't think it would be a barrier.
Ours: Barry Hughes thought that the police were much more sensible these days than they may have been 20 years ago, in terms of trying to get cases charged in order to meet some notional target. In the CPS, they did not have targets for securing convictions or not. Clearly, they prosecuted if they thought that there was a reasonable prospect, a realistic prospect, of conviction and it was in the public interest.
", + "image_path": "b56fa3ade08c9dcf302ba6154a2ed1438aac566bcedae3e142fbcf4b974fb2b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 518, + 229, + 531 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 518, + 229, + 531 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 518, + 229, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 518, + 229, + 531 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cb47a10a83f441bdd1494d5961cd59cb818872b453dfd604070b5f152d1b58f5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 519, + 360, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 519, + 360, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 519, + 360, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "About the performance measure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8503" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 196, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 196, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 121, + 196, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Limitations section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 142, + 329, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 220, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 220, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 158, + 220, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Ethics Statement section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 212, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 212, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 194, + 212, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Abstract and Section 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 216, + 398, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 230, + 138, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 201, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 201, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 201, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yes, the References section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 211, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 211, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 306, + 211, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yes, the References section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 327, + 463, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 220, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 220, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 343, + 220, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Ethics Statement section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 364, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 196, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 196, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 419, + 196, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Limitations section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 440, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 440, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 440, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 220, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 220, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 482, + 220, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Ethics Statement section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 504, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 208, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 208, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 208, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 144, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 144, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 623, + 144, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 124, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 124, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 662, + 124, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Section 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 683, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 144, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 144, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 712, + 144, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 522, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8504" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 238 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? \nAppendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 522, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 522, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? Section 3.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 336, + 523, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 336, + 523, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 336, + 523, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Section 3.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 398, + 523, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 398, + 523, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 398, + 523, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? The Ethics Statement section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8505" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_content_list.json b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ee0e0ae40644020ad8723c177b0608fd4b147ee --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2113 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT: Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 268, + 83, + 729, + 121 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fei Yuan $^{1}$ , Yinquan Lu $^{1}$ , Wenhao Zhu $^{2}$ , Lingpeng Kong $^{3}$ , Lei Li $^{4}$ , Yu Qiao $^{1}$ , Jingjing Xu $^{1}$ $^{1}$ Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 129, + 885, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 165, + 848, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 The University of Hong Kong, 4 University of California, Santa Barbara", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 181, + 800, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yuanfei, luyinquan, qiaoyu}@pjlab.org.cn, zhuwh@smail.nju.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 199, + 887, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lpk@cs.hku.hk,leili@cs.ucsb.edu,jingjingxupku.02@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 215, + 850, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) aims to build a unified model for many language directions. Existing monolithic models for MNMT encounter two challenges: parameter interference among languages and inefficient inference for large models. In this paper, we revisit the classic multi-way structures and develop a detachable model by assigning each language (or group of languages) to an individual branch that supports plug-and-play training and inference. To address the needs of learning representations for all languages in a unified space, we propose a novel efficient training recipe, upon which we build an effective detachable model, Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we collect data from OPUS and build a translation benchmark covering 433 languages and 1.3B parallel data. Experiments show that Lego-MT with 1.2B parameters brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. It even outperforms M2M-100 with 12B parameters. The proposed training recipe brings a $28.2 \\times$ speedup over the conventional multi-way training method. $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 282, + 460, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 640, + 258, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) translates languages by mapping a source sentence to a unified representation space and decoding a target sentence from this space (Johnson et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Neubig and Hu, 2018; Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Traditional MNMT models use a shared network to align representations in different languages. Recently, scaling up the size of MNMT models brings significant quantitative improvements and new qualitative capabilities (M2M-100, Fan et al. 2021; NLLB-200, Costa-jussa et al. 2022; inter alia). Beyond MNMT, recent large-scale language models (e.g., ChatGPT) also show promising results on zero-shot (or", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 667, + 490, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2d3d7dd25d30308862d870c823cd56ba633b3bc6cf7f10838027164edac1535c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Multi-way architecture. (1) Monolithic Model is the fully-shared model for all translation directions; (2) Lego-MT is a multi-way structure that includes both multilingual (denoted as M) and language-specific encoders and decoders for English (denoted as E), Chinese (denoted as C) and Nepali (denotes as N). The architecture is detachable at inference time where only a specific encoder and decoder are needed. U (Unified space) represents hidden representations generated by encoders." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 272, + 842, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "few-shot) translation, especially for language-to-English translation. Despite great potential, there is still a large gap between LLMs and existing MNMT models on massive translation directions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 546, + 884, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simply using a shared model for massive MNMT brings new effectiveness and efficiency issues. First, memorizing multilingual knowledge within finite parameters causes parameter interference (Ha et al., 2016a), especially between high-resource and low-resource languages (Li and Gong, 2021), which leads to significant performance degradation. Second, the centralization feature requires all parameters to be included in the computation graph during the inference stage, resulting in heavy computational overhead (Song et al., 2021). Common fixes of these issues include adapter-based approaches (Zhu et al., 2021), which handle parameter interference via fine-tuning new parameters to fit bilingual translation, and mixture-of-expert (MoE), which supports dynamic activation. These methods either fail to adapt to massive translation directions or require all parameters to be loaded into memory, thus remaining unsatisfactory consid-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "'https://github.com/CONE-MT/Lego-MT.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 460, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11518", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 11518-11533 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 778, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ering the efficiency of training and inference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 450, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To find out the best recipe for massive multilingual translation, we revisit the classic multi-way (or multi-branch) architecture (Dong et al., 2015; Firat et al., 2016), whose philosophy is to allocate an individual encoder and decoder for each language (or group of languages), as shown in Figure 1. The immediate benefit of this structure is: 1) The utilization of individual modules for specific languages mitigates parameter interference; 2) Each branch can be independently loaded during inference, significantly reducing computational costs and decreasing inference latency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 99, + 489, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite appealing, there remain two big challenges when training multi-way structures: representation alignment between different languages due to the lack of shared parameters; and low GPU efficiency during training because unused parameters occupy GPU memory but do not have any computations. Furthermore, the feature of random language mixture in a batch makes it infeasible to use an online-loading method (i.e., loading during usage) to accelerate training since it will cause impractical IO communication costs during batch switching (between CPU and GPU).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 294, + 489, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these challenges, we propose a novel training recipe, which results in our new detachable model, Lego-MT. We classify the training data into different language-centric groups such that we only need to load specific branches into GPU memory, eliminating the need to load different modules constantly. The language-centric group is trained in sequential order. Second, during each language-centric training, we introduce a multilingual branch and propose a new triple-flow method to help a model learn to map to and translate from a unified space. Specifically, a unified space is a type of representation space rather than a module. It creates a common representation of language that can be used across multiple language tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 487, + 489, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate our training recipe for massive MNMT, we construct a many-to-many translation dataset $^2$ covering 7 language-centric groups, 433 languages, based on the open-source website OPUS $^3$ (Tiedemann, 2012).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 728, + 489, + 807 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT-1.2B yields average gains of 3.2 spBLEU, and even outperforms M2M-100-12B which has $10 \\times$ inference parameters. Furthermore, the proposed training recipe brings a $28.2 \\times$", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 808, + 489, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "speedup compared with the conventional multiway training method. We also conduct comprehensive experiments on branch combinations, thanks to the detachable nature of the model. We find that low-resource languages prefer multilingual branches and high-resource languages prefer language-specific branches. In addition, we also observe that the unseen combination of a high-resource language encoder and a high-resource language decoder can achieve better performance, showing that Lego-MT can align different branches into a unified space effectively. The main contributions can be summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We build an effective detachable model LegoMT for multilingual machine translation.", + "- Experiments demonstrate that Lego-MT brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. This training recipe results in a $28.2 \\times$ training speedup compared with the naive multi-branch architecture.", + "- We construct a massive multilingual translation dataset covering 433 languages, which greatly extends the scale of languages." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 294, + 882, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 455, + 665, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this part, we review recent related multilingual machine translation models. We classify them into three categories: fully / group-shared (Dabre et al., 2020), and Mixture-of-expert (MoE).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The fully-shared model is the most prevalent model in Multilingual Neural Machine Translation (MNMT). This model employs a single architecture to translate in all directions (Ha et al., 2016b; Johnson et al., 2017; Bapna et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021) and has demonstrated efficacy in aiding low-resource directions. However, fully-shared models are often subject to capacity bottlenecks and trade-offs between translation quality and the number of languages (Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020; Ha et al., 2016a). Group-shared models incorporate individual parameters for each group and represent a popular solution for sharing language-specific encoders or decoders (Lee et al., 2017; Zoph and Knight, 2016). Lee et al. (2017); Sachan and Neubig (2018); Ji et al. (2020); Lyu et al. (2020); Sachan and Neubig (2018) proposed an MNMT model only for shared language-specific modules. LaSS (Lin et al., 2021) learns language-specific sub-networks for each language direction for multilingual translation. Adpater methods (Bapna and Firat, 2019; Zhu et al., 2021)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2The dataset is released on https://github.com/ CONE-MT/Lego-MT.git.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://opus.nlpl.eu.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 904, + 331, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11519", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c5d5f1254d128890322a7c18465c2aa9e61a02340b1b4e678d8c4f80c09f71f8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overview of Lego-MT and training recipe. During training, we introduce an efficient training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. The language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. During each training phase, only language-specific parameters are loaded into GPU memory. The training maintains three flows: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (Multilingual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. U means the unified space, hidden representations generated by encoders." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 169, + 80, + 833, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "add additional side networks to each language direction in addition to the main multilingual Transformer encoder-decoder. While these studies can alleviate the capacity bottleneck to some extent, challenges remain when handling larger-scale languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 489, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) has recently emerged as a prominent research direction (Jacobs et al., 1991; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussa et al., 2022), which are sparsely activated, with each inference only activating a subset of parameters. Researchers have applied MoE to massively multilingual translation and introduced various regularization strategies to enhance performance (Dai et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). Despite promising results, MoE's objective differs from ours, as it still requires the entire structure to be stored in GPU memory during inference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 557, + 489, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The encoder-decoder structure has demonstrated considerable flexibility through the utilization of the Lego-NN (Dalmia et al., 2022). The Lego-NN can be applied to various tasks with decoder modules being detachable, in contrast, the Lego-MT model design allows for the performance of massively MNMT with all modules being detachable.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Lego-MT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 420, + 626, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Overview", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 445, + 630, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper aims to build a detachable multi-branch model with a language (or group)-specific encoder and a language (or group)-specific decoder. As shown in Figure 2, the detachable structure provides an effective mechanism to only load a part of modules during training and inference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 467, + 884, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During training, we introduce a new training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. During each training phase, only language-centric data and related branches are loaded. All language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. We empirically found that the orders contribute little to the final performance and we fix the training order for simplification in the next parts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 884, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During each language-centric training phase, we introduce a multi-lingual branch to help language-specific branches learn to encode to a unified space and decode from a unified space. Unified Space is a concept that aims to map all languages into a unified representation space without any parameters. This concept is used in natural language processing and machine learning to create a common representation of language (Lyu et al., 2020; Fan et al., 2021) that can be used across different languages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The training maintains triple-flow: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (multilin", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11520", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [ + "Algorithm 1: Triple-flow training." + ], + "code_body": "Input: Epoch number $L$ . Training data for Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow: $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow t_N}\\}$ and $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow \\cdot} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_N}\\}$ and $\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow \\lg},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow \\lg},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow \\lg}\\}$ , respectively. The parameters used for Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow are initialized as $\\theta_{m} = \\theta_{0}$ and $\\theta_{e} = \\theta_{0}$ . Note, the parameters used for Dec-Flow are initialized as $\\theta_d = \\theta_m$ after training of Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. \nfor epoch $l = 1$ to $L$ do \n Shuffle $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow}$ . to obtain a new training sequence. \nfor each batch $\\mathcal{D}_e\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow}$ . do \n Evaluate the objective by Equation 2 on $\\mathcal{D}_e$ : $l_e = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_b} - \\log P_{\\theta_e}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})$ \n Get a minibatch of multilingual data $\\mathcal{D}_m\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}}$ \n Evaluate the objective by Equation 1 on $\\mathcal{D}_m$ : $l_m = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_m} - \\log P_{\\theta_m}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})$ \n Update $\\theta_{m}$ and $\\theta_{e}$ by: $\\theta_{m}\\gets \\theta_{m} - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_{m}}(l_{m} + l_{e})$ and $\\theta_{e}\\gets \\theta_{e} - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_{e}}l_{e}$ \nend \nend \nfor epoch $l = 1$ to $L$ do \n Shuffle $\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}$ to obtain a new training sequence. \nfor each batch $\\mathcal{D}_d\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}$ do \n Calculate $\\mathcal{D}_d$ by Equation 3: $l_d = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_d} - \\log P_{\\theta_d}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})$ \n Update $\\theta_d$ : $\\theta_d\\gets \\theta_d - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_d}l_d$ \nend", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 103, + 848, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. Surprisingly, we find that Dec-flow cannot be trained together with Mix/Enc-flow, resulting in catastrophic forgetting in the multilingual encoder (detailed discussion in Section 5). Therefore, the basic training processes can be briefly divided into two stages: the Mix/Enc-Flow phase and the Dec-Flow phase.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 394, + 487, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During inference, there are three alternative flows in Lego-MT for language-centric translation to be translated (\"Inference Stage\" in Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, users can decide to choose which path for inference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 487, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Triple-Flow Training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 669, + 326, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a multilingual dataset with $N$ languages, $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow t_N}\\}$ , where each $\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j}$ contains a parallel data from the source language $S_{i}$ to the target language $T_{j}$ , $s_i$ refers to the $i$ -th ( $i\\in N$ ) language being translated from, $t_j$ represents the $j$ -th ( $j\\in N$ ) language being translated into, respectively. Specifically, one-to-many multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be expressed as $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to \\cdot} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_N}\\}$ . Similarly, the many-to-one multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be denoted as $\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\to \\lg} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\to \\lg},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\to \\lg},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\to \\lg}\\}$ . All input sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tag) to indicate the source language and target languages. During each training phase, we have tripleflows playing for different rules, Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 394, + 884, + 457 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.1 Mix-Flow", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 469, + 645, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mix-Flow is built upon a multilingual encoder branch and a multilingual decoder branch. It is trained on multilingual to multilingual data. This flow learns a mapping function $f$ from a sentence in any language to another language. All language data is mixed together. The input source sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language tag) to indicate the source languages. Following traditional methods, we also add a target language tag in the decoder part. The training loss for a Mix-Flow is:", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 489, + 882, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {m} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\mathrm {m u l t i}}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {m}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 678, + 882, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{y}$ is a pair sampled from multilingual training data. It is used to avoid over-fitting language-specific data in Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 882, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.2 Enc-Flow", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 643, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Enc-Flow includes a language-specific encoder and a multilingual decoder. It is trained with one-to-many multilingual data. The structure of such a design is natural for language-specific encoder training: the encoder input data comes from the same source language lg, and the decoder is multi-lingual data. The language tag is also added to the encoder", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11521", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and decoder parts. The training loss for language-specific Enc-Flow is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {e} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\lg \\rightarrow}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {e}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 129, + 487, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}$ is a pair sampled from one-to-many training data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 177, + 487, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.3 Dec-Flow", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 219, + 248, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dec-Flow includes a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder. It is trained with many-to-one translation. We separate the training of Dec-Flow from the training of Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow. The parameters used for training Dec-Flow are initialized with the latest model trained by Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. The language tag is also added to the encoder and decoder parts. Given a many-to-one dataset $\\mathcal{D}_{\\rightarrow \\lg}$ , the training loss is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 240, + 489, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {d} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {d}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 399, + 487, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}$ is a pair sampled from many-to-one training data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 485, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Training Algorithm", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 492, + 315, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 shows the whole training procedure. We will go into the effects of the two-stage design in Section 5. In the first stage, we initialize each module of the Lego-MT model with a pre-trained MT model $\\theta_0$ . After initialization, we shuffle a one-to-many dataset to obtain a new training sequence for Enc-Flow training. In the second stage, we fix the encoder parameter of M-Flow $\\theta_m$ and learn the D-Flow decoder $\\theta_d$ . The iteration keeps running for $L$ epochs. During inference, users can decide to load which flow for inference. We also evaluate the gap between these inference flows in experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 489, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 720, + 260, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While Lego-MT is generic, we focus the experiments on M2M-100-1.2B as backbone models since M2M-100 is a leading MT model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 747, + 487, + 795 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 808, + 220, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training Data We create a Many-to-Many dataset from OPUS4. We build a dataset covering 7 language-specific data and 433 languages. The 7 core languages are En, Zh, De, Ar, Ne, Az, Ceb.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 829, + 489, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The specifics of the construction process are delineated in Appendix A. All training pairs have been deduplicated with Flores-101.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation Data We use Flores-101 (Fan et al., 2021) as the evaluation set, which provides human-written translation pairs covering 101 languages. Since M2M-100 baselines only cover 86 languages, we only compare Lego-MT with baselines on 86 languages5. We evaluate $7 \\times 85$ translation directions in total.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 131, + 884, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 255, + 628, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct experiments by using a pre-trained multilingual machine translation model: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021) as initialization. We build 7 language-specific encoders and 7 language-specific decoders to model 7 core languages. We compare Lego-MT with the following baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 882, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flores-175MB / 615MB Flores-101 (Goyal et al., 2022) furnishes two baseline models, with parameter sizes of 175MB and 615MB respectively, constructed on M2M-100.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 372, + 884, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "M2M-100-418M It is the smallest model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is a base-version Transformer model with 12 encoders and 12 decoders with 4,096 hidden state units.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 436, + 882, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "M2M-100-1.2B It is a Transformer model released by Fan et al. (2021) with 24 encoders and 24 decoders with 8,192 hidden state units.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 501, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "M2M-100-12B It is the largest single M2M-100 model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is obtained by adding language-specific layers to M2M-100-1.2B model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 882, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric Fine-Tuning To build a fair comparison, we also use the constructed dataset to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. We follow the standard fine-tuning paradigm, which uses a Transformer initialized with M2M-100-1.2B. In this baseline, we only use LG-centric data to train models. We simply merge all translation pairs related to language LG together to get the mixed training data. Like our model does, we also add language code in the encoder and decoder parts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual Fine-Tuning In order to establish an equitable comparison, the constructed dataset was utilized to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. All translation data was amalgamated", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5These 86 languages are: af, am, ar, ast, be, bg, bn, bs, ca, ceb, cs, cy, da, de, el, en, es, et, fa, ff, fi, fr, ga, gl, gu, ha, he, hi, hr, hu, hy, id, ig, is, it, ja, jv, ka, kk, km, kn, ko, lb, lg, ln, lo, lt, lv, mk, ml, mn, mr, ms, my, ne, nl, no, ns, oc, or, pa, pl, ps, pt, ro, ru, sd, sk, sl, so, sr, sv, sw, ta, th, tl, tr, uk, ur, uz, vi, wo, xh, yo, zh, zu.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 845, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://opus.nlpl.eu/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 336, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11522", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cf52ce7014f620a0967fb9047a7e897cd3b8ea5f718109101455b589f7a8c966.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelParam.X → EnX → ZhX → DeX → ArX → NeX → AzX → CebAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.115.77.211.24.60.63.03.16.5
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.321.210.314.211.51.32.44.99.4
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.521.611.016.18.81.04.75.39.8
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.026.312.919.38.11.44.66.811.3
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.028.013.321.315.12.96.48.813.7
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.027.913.019.517.25.54.20.512.5
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.027.413.920.915.212.19.410.315.6
8: Lego-MT× 1.030.716.423.818.215.011.915.118.7
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 882, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fc477bbf9d95f87e0216138e4609abf25b6ebbd8a55995d12d7c646a35341433.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 1: Translation results on Flores-101. The top group shows the results of many-to-one translation and the bottom part shows the results of one-to-many settings. We display the spBLEU on the devtest of Flores-101. Each cell represents the average performance of translating from the rest languages. “Param.” represents the number of required parameters during inference. Baseline 7 has the exact same training data with Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we use Mix-Flow in Lego-MT for all translation pairs. Lego-MT outperforms M2M-100-1.2B w. multilingual fine-tuning by a large margin, with an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU (3.1 on many-to-one translation and 3.3 on one-to-many translation)." + ], + "table_body": "
ModelParam.En → XZh → XDe → XAr → XNe → XAz → XCeb → XAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.112.77.811.66.92.22.85.47.1
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.317.310.114.111.54.04.26.19.6
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.518.011.115.611.25.24.37.910.5
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.021.513.117.712.67.16.19.512.5
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.024.714.920.316.49.76.212.515.0
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.021.310.915.814.93.93.01.510.2
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.021.813.518.414.713.411.112.415.0
8: Lego-MT× 1.025.016.321.418.417.013.516.818.3
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 200, + 882, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for the purpose of fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B in this baseline. Correspondingly, language codes were incorporated in both the encoder and decoder components, as is done in our model.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 453, + 487, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Settings and Metric", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 527, + 315, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training Details The training code is bulit on the code repository fairseq6. Each flow is initialized with a pre-trained M2M-100-1.2B model. We train all models using Adam optimizer with $\\beta_{1} = 0.9$ , $\\beta_{2} = 0.999$ , the learning rate is set to 1e-4, and the max token number is set as 8,000. The training of all centric languages is conducted in random order: En, De, Ne, Az, Ceb, Ar, Zh. We split the whole dataset into 70 shards. And the whole training process takes around 15 days on 32 A100 GPUs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 489, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Metric We use the same evaluation metric (spBLEU) in the Flores-101 dataset. Before computing BLEU, we de-tokenized all data and then apply sentence piece tokenization for each language. It facilitates a more accurate assessment of model quality on the long-tail of low-resource languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 218, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT is an efficient translation model, outperforming M2M-100-12B with only $10\\%$ inference parameters Table 1 show experiment results", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 837, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on the Flores-101 devtest set. As we can see, LegoMT is an efficient translation model that achieves large performance improvements over M2M-100-1.2B, with 7.4 spBLEU improvements on many-to-one translation and 5.8 spBLEU improvements on one-to-many translation. It even outperforms M2M-100-12B especially on one many-to-one settings, with a gain of 5.0 spBLEU. As a comparison, with the same training data, a shared model M2M-100-1.2B only obtains slight performance improvements, 4.3 spBLEU on many-to-one translation, and 2.5 spBLEU on one-to-many translation. These results demonstrate Lego-MT provides an effective solution by using fewer inference parameters to achieve higher results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 453, + 884, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared with high-resource translation, low-resource translation benefits more from multiway architectures. We observe that the improvements achieved by Lego-MT are not equally contributed by different languages. As we can see from Table 1, X→Ne, X→Az, and X→Ceb obtain more obvious improvements than X→En, X→Zh, and X→De. On X→Ne translation, Lego-MT even gets 13.6 improvements over M2M-100-1.2B. These results are consistent with previous studies about parameter interference in massive multilingual machine translation that low-resource translation usually suffers. With less parameter interference, Lego", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{6}$ https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/tree/main/examples/m2m_100.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 472, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11523", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MT gets higher low-resource translation results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 470, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multilingual branches play a significant role in avoiding over-fitting. As we can see from Table 1, only fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B on language-centric data has serious over-fitting problems that the performance is dropped sharply, especially on low-resource settings, with a loss of 3.2 spBLEU on $\\mathrm{Ne} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}$ translation and 3.1 spBLEU on $\\mathrm{Az} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}$ translation. Like this baseline, Lego-MT also introduces language-specific parameters but does not show any performance drop. The key difference between Lego-MT with M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric fine-tuning lies in that Lego-MT introduces multilingual branches as regularization, demonstrating that the unified space can avoid catastrophic forgetting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 489, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT supports efficient training, which is $28.2 \\times$ faster than multi-way training. For simplification, we implement an 8-branch architecture where Lego-MT and the multi-way model both have 8 branches for encoder and decoders. We use Chinese-centric data in the first shard and select $7\\mathrm{Zh} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}$ and $\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Zh}$ translations as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). For two models, all 8 encoder branches are initialized with the encoder part of M2M-100-418M, and all 8 decoder branches are initialized with the decoder part of M2M-100-418M. Due to the large parameter size, the multi-way model requires fewer tokens in a single batch. Lego-MT has less parameter size during each inference and thus can support more tokens in a single batch. For a fair comparison, we use the same settings for two models and set the number of tokens in a single batch to 3K. Due to the low GPU efficiency issues, the multi-way model takes 16.9 hours to finish one shard training on average while Lego-MT only takes 0.6 hours.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 489, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The total training cost of Lego-MT is only about twice that of M2M-1.2B fine-tuning. In the first stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific encoder, and in the second stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific decoder. Compared to M2M-1.2B, the additional computations come from training language-specific parameters. Since the language-specific branch has the same size as the multilingual branch, the training costs only double. We believe that the training costs for such a model are reasonable, given its one-time training", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3b83af2bfda21e2b9dbc15d3f3acc8a1d624451f9420f95a30d3f15cc77cd80a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Method#TokensSize (GB)Time (Hour)
Multi-Way Training3,00060.916.9
Lego-MT Training3,00010.30.6
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 80, + 878, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Training efficiency of Lego-MT and a multi-way model. \"#Tokens\" represent the maximum tokens in a single batch during training. For a fair comparison, we initialize an 8-branch Lego-MT and an 8-branch multi-way model with M2M-100-418M as initialization. Size represents the size of the loaded parameters. \"Time\" represents the total time of completing all data (We select a small subset of training data for evaluation). In Lego-MT, we use a parallel thread for branch switching, which does not affect the running time. Lego-MT supports efficient training, which achieves $28.2 \\times$ speedups over multi-way training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 142, + 884, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "feature. In real-world applications with unlimited data, inference costs are more critical than training costs. The advantage of Lego-MT is that it largely improves translation performance without incurring additional inference costs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 341, + 884, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis on Lego-MT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 438, + 732, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation studies on triple-Flow training We design three flows in Lego-MT: Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Mix-Flow contains a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder, which is essential in regularizing language-specific training. We start from M-Flow and see how Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow affect the final performance, which gives more insights into the design of our framework. For simplification, we use Chinese-centric data in top-10 shards and select $7\\mathrm{Zh}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}$ and $\\mathrm{X}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Zh}$ translation pairs as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). We train Lego-MT on the selected set and observe results in Table 3. We can see that jointly training Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow boosts the performance in most directions. In contrast, jointly training Dec-Flow and Mix-Flow causes large performance degeneration. It is mainly because that language-specific decoder may cause a large distribution shift on multilingual encoders, resulting in catastrophic forgetting. That's why we split the training into two stages and keeps Dec-Flow in the second stage.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 467, + 884, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analysis on inference path section Due to the plug-and-play features, there are several possible inference paths for a single translation direction. At the inference stage, there are three alternative solutions for language-centric translation: Mix-Flow,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11524", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cf2c5ef7e80d10f6d9134b3061fef1cf3dd78810a52711353c5b4c9b2bbb35aa.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LangMix-FlowDec-Flow + Mix-FlowEnc-Flow + Mix-Flow
x→zhzh→xx→zhzh→xx→zhzh→x
Be8.13.57.53.313.16.1
De16.014.714.013.422.119.2
Fa13.111.911.611.317.715.1
Jv6.33.16.03.18.83.3
Ne9.65.68.74.27.24.0
Pa1.41.11.20.51.80.5
Sw8.58.67.56.612.412.4
AVG.9.06.98.16.111.98.7
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 82, + 482, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/31f19b52ba54241d55bdeb43862bf749f106b28a485e14ede03db600c0a19e6d.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Ablation studies on Triple-Flow training. $\\rightarrow$ zh refers to the results of translating to zh and $\\mathrm{zh}\\rightarrow$ refers to the results of translating from zh. Dec-Flow brings a large performance drop." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelCeb→HaCeb→IgCeb→LnCeb→YoAVG.
M-1.2B5.55.90.92.43.7
M-12B8.710.80.92.95.8
M-FT6.46.60.82.14.0
Lego-MT12.513.92.33.28.0
ModelHa→CebIg→CebLn→CebYo→CebAVG.
M-1.2B7.47.54.23.45.6
M-12B8.88.83.84.16.4
M-FT7.58.63.74.86.2
Lego-MT12.312.36.26.79.4
ModelX→AstX→DaX→HuX→LoAVG.
M-1.2B16.722.017.74.815.3
M-12B13.023.319.19.016.1
M-FT13.823.217.80.913.9
Lego-MT15.425.420.15.616.6
ModelAst→XDa→XHu→XLo→XAVG.
M-1.2B13.218.316.06.613.5
M-12B15.220.918.28.815.8
M-FT14.417.915.55.813.4
Lego-MT15.520.818.18.915.8
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 288, + 485, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: The results on unseen directions that are not covered by the constructed dataset. \"M\" means M2M-100. Lego-MT shows the best generalization results. \"M-FT\" means M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual FT.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 544, + 489, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Figure 2 shows the comparison between these inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg., Ceb, Az, Ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). High-resource languages (eg., En, De, Zh, Ar) prefer language-specific branches. Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths. This demonstrates that specific parameters are more important when the amount of data in a language is huge. In summary, the Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) is recommended for inference tasks with low-resource languages, and the Dec-FLow (M-encoder + D-decoder) is more appropriate for high-resource languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT can learn the align different branches", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/817bfc7de679ef3a22fd655d0a4533b4ca35fa474cfa71e888212c868e5d93f3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The comparison between different inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg. ceb, az, ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). For high-resource languages (eg., en, de, zh, ar), Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 589, + 84, + 803, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/433252e8de01418292dd325fe0390ded0cbe14d8b406e53637dfc32399b89320.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The spBLEU gap between Mix-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder) and unseen language-specific Flow (the combination of a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder). Positive numbers mean the results of the language-specific Flow are better than that of the M-Flow. The unseen language-specific Flow achieves better results on 9 out of 12 directions, demonstrating that Lego-MT can learn the alignment for different branches." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 589, + 346, + 801, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "into a unified space. During training, we propose a triple-flow way to train Lego-MT. These three flows contain Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow. To evaluate the quality of the hidden representations, we conduct experiments by directly using a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder for inference. Since such combinations do not occur in the training phase, it can evaluate the quality of the unified hidden space. We randomly combine the language-specific encoder and the language-specific decoder of four high-resource languages (En, De, Zh, Ar) with 12 translation directions. Figure 4 shows the performance of directly combining language-specific encoder and decoder. We find that such unseen combinations can get better results in most translation directions (9 out of 12). These results prove that Lego-MT can effectively map all languages into a unified space.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11525", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cc0276f17046636e9d86c1996100cb17aa9671b74ccc4d1861b7e447d39cdef1.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAst→XHu→XDa→XLo→XEn→XDe→XAr→XAz→XCeb→XNe→XZh→XAVG.
Multilingual FT3.82.62.76.37.64.21.72.60.96.23.73.9
Lego-MT14.210.111.917.520.614.16.912.25.817.711.713.1
ModelX→AstX→HuX→DaX→LoX→EnX→DeX→ArX→AzX→CebX→NeX→ZhAVG.
Multilingual FT4.92.21.66.910.83.00.52.70.77.84.34.1
Lego-MT14.18.810.517.824.113.73.611.04.021.211.812.9
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/27ddf4ed93d4581e6b0d26e5752f2b333c7719669a1412471780831ed7f104d2.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Commencing with random initialization, $1/7$ of the data is trained and the performance differential between Multilingual-FT and Lego-MT is evaluated. The findings indicate that the mean performance of Lego-MT across all language orientations surpasses that of Multilingual-FT and exhibits a more rapid convergence rate." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelX→EnEn→XAVG.
ChatGPT zero-shot27.923.925.9
ChatGPT eight-shot31.924.728.3
Lego-MT30.225.728.0
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 243, + 467, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Comparison of ChatGPT and Lego-MT: zero-shot and eight-shot results. While ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT in zero-shot performance, it outperforms Lego-MT in the $\\mathrm{X}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ direction with eight-shot. However, in the $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}$ direction, ChatGPT falls behind Lego-MT even with eight-shot.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 316, + 489, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, it proves that the performance of high-resource languages still has room for improvement by using language-specific parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 489, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT achieves promising results in unseen directions. We also conduct experiments on unseen directions to evaluate Lego-MT's performance in these scenarios, as demonstrated in Table 4. Distinguishing unseen translation directions can involve two scenarios: 1) The training data set lacks a specific translation direction. In this case, we start with the low-resource Ceb language and identify translation directions not included in our constructed data set. 2) The training data set lacks a direct translation between two languages. For instance, our training corpus may contain translations from Ast to En and from En to Es, but not a direct translation from Ast to Es. To address this, we randomly select four languages (Ast, Da, Hu, Lo) and evaluate the average performance on the Flores-101 devtest with one-to-many and many-to-one settings. According to all experimental results, Lego-MT significantly surpasses the Multilingual FT baseline and is on par with the M2M-100-12B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 482, + 489, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT performance is independent of pretrained model initialization and converges faster than existing pre-training pipelines. To evaluate the necessity of pre-trained model initialization, we compare Lego-MT with the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline that uses a single encoder-decoder model for all languages. We con", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "duct experiments on a subset of our constructed corpus, which contains parallel data for 433 languages. We randomly initialize both models and train them on only $1/7$ of the data, then measure their performance on Flores-101. As shown in Table 5, our experimental results demonstrate that our Lego-MT model is independent of the pre-trained model initialization and achieves faster convergence than the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline. Moreover, our Lego-MT model outperforms the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline on most of the machine translation tasks, showing its superior generalization and adaptation ability.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 247, + 884, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lego-MT surpasses ChatGPT in the $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}$ direction and is on par with ChatGPT in the $\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ direction, in terms of performance. A comparative analysis between ChatGPT and LegoMT, as shown in Table 6, reveals that in zero-shot performance, ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT. However, in eight-shot performance, ChatGPT surpasses Lego-MT in the $\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ direction but falls short in the $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}$ direction. The prompts utilized for ChatGPT are \"You are a helpful assistant that translates {SOURCELANG} to {TARGETLANG}.\" for the system and \"Translate the following {SOURCELANG} text to {TARGETLANG}: {SOURCE_TEXT}.\" for the user.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 457, + 885, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 697, + 640, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With the increasing scale of languages, using a single model to translate all directions brings new challenges in practice. This paper proposes an efficient training recipe, which results in a detachable multilingual translation model, Lego-MT. To validate the effectiveness of our algorithm, we develop a massive MNMT translation dataset, covering 433 languages. Results on Flores-101 show that Lego-MT-1.2B achieves large performance improvements over strong baselines under a fair comparison. It even outperforms the result of M2M12B with a gain of 4 BLEU on many-to-one.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11526", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00089.", + "Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478.", + "Ankur Bapna and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1538-1548, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marta R. Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. CoRR, abs/2207.04672.", + "Raj Dabre, Chenhui Chu, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2020. A survey of multilingual neural machine translation. ACM Comput. Surv., 53(5).", + "Damai Dai, Li Dong, Shuming Ma, Bo Zheng, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Stablemoe: Stable routing strategy for mixture of experts. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 7085-7095. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Siddharth Dalmia, Dmytro Okhonko, Mike Lewis, Sergey Edunov, Shinji Watanabe, Florian Metze, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2022. Legonn: Building modular encoder-decoder models.", + "Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, Wei He, Dianhai Yu, and Haifeng Wang. 2015. Multi-task learning for multiple language translation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics(ACL).", + "Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "mixture-of-experts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5547-5569. PMLR.", + "Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48.", + "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity.", + "Orhan First, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Multi-way, multilingual neural machine translation with a shared attention mechanism. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT).", + "Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, Peng-Jen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzman, and Angela Fan. 2022. The flores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingual machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:522-538.", + "Jiatao Gu, Hany Hassan, Jacob Devlin, and Victor O.K. Li. 2018. Universal neural machine translation for extremely low resource languages. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT).", + "Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016a. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation.", + "Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016b. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation.", + "Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87.", + "Baijun Ji, Zhirui Zhang, Xiangyu Duan, Min Zhang, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2020. Cross-lingual pre-training based transfer for zero-shot neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 115–122.", + "Melvin Johnson, Mike Schuster, Quoc V Le, Maxim Krikun, Yonghui Wu, Zhifeng Chen, Nikhil Thorat, Fernanda Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Greg Corrado, et al. 2017. Google's multilingual neural machine translation system: Enabling zero-shot translation." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11527", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:339-351.", + "Jason Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Fully character-level neural machine translation without explicit segmentation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:365-378.", + "Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020. Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668.", + "Xian Li and Hongyu Gong. 2021. Robust optimization for multilingual translation with imbalanced data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS).", + "Zehui Lin, Xiao Pan, Mingxuan Wang, Xipeng Qiu, Jiangtao Feng, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2020. Pretraining multilingual neural machine translation by leveraging alignment information. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).", + "Zehui Lin, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning language specific sub-network for multilingual machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).", + "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742.", + "Sungwon Lyu, Bokyung Son, Kichang Yang, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Revisiting Modularized Multilingual NMT to Meet Industrial Demands. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5905-5918, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).", + "Xiao Pan, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Contrastive learning for many-to-many multilingual neural machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).", + "Devendra Sachan and Graham Neubig. 2018. Parameter sharing methods for multilingual self-attentional translation models. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 261–271, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538.", + "Zhenqiao Song, Hao Zhou, Lihua Qian, Jingjing Xu, Shanbo Cheng, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. switch-glat: Multilingual parallel machine translation via code-switch decoder. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).", + "Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Multilingual translation via grafting pre-trained language models. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) - Findings.", + "Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).", + "Biao Zhang, Philip Williams, Ivan Titov, and Rico Sennrich. 2020. Improving massively multilingual neural machine translation and zero-shot translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11867.", + "Yaoming Zhu, Jiangtao Feng, Chengqi Zhao, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Counter-interference adapter for multilingual machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 2812-2823.", + "Barret Zoph and Kevin Knight. 2016. Multi-source neural translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.00710." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11528", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 211, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite promising results, we also notice several limitations in this paper. First, we find that low-resource translation is not boosted by language-specific decoders and language-specific encoders, which require more exploration of the trade-off between parameter sharing and parameter tension. Second, the evaluation of few-shot languages still remains a large problem. Although the final training dataset covers 433 languages, we only evaluate the translation performance on the available evaluation set that only covers 86 languages since baselines do not support so many languages. More standard benchmarks are required for evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 489, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Dataset construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 330, + 331, + 346 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we will describe the construction details of the Many-to-Many dataset. As shown in Table 5, the pipeline mainly consists of six steps:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 356, + 487, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c0bc75fc823c8a809464b9cbc19376d4ee0c76413776773fbbbf1df09e6952b6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The construction pipeline for Many-to-Many dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 206, + 416, + 386, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 1: Data Collection The raw data is collected from OPUS7, which is an open corpus that collects numerous parallel sentences from the web and overs a large number of domains from legislative to religious texts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 2: Data Unification Since the OPUS includes datasets from different sources, it leads to the following two significant issues.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 783, + 489, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1) Different Language Code: Some language in OPUS has several corresponding language codes. One of the reasons is that different corpora use different standards for language code, including", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 489, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3 or self-defined language codes in OPUS. Another reason is that some corpora append region ids at the end of language codes to distinguish the same language used in different regions. To unify language codes, we replace ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 language codes with ISO 639-1 language codes if the codes from ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 have the same language name in the code set published by SIL International (formerly known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics) $^{8}$ .", + "2) Inconsistent Operation: Some datasets pre-tokensize their sentences in OPUS, especially for Chinese and Japanese." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, we remove the region id if the language code ends with a region id. All replaced language codes are shown in Table 7. For the language codes out of ISO 639 series, we list them and the corpus they come from in Table 9. Furthermore, we report all used language codes and the full names of their corresponding languages in our dataset in Table 10. Then we detokenize all sentences by removing white space and unifying our texts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 313, + 884, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 3: Data Merging After data unification, the parallel data is merged with the same language code pair from a different corpus.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 489, + 882, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 4: Data Cleaning The OPUS corpus collected from the web contains some poor-quality data. The main problems are:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 552, + 882, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1) Duplication: we use the dedduplication script from fairseq to remove all duplicated sentence pairs for each language pair.", + "2) Missing Translation: We remove the sentence without corresponding translation or repeating itself as translation.", + "3) Length Mismatching: After segmentation the sentences with white space for most languages or individual characters for Chinese and Japanese, we apply a filtering script from Moses decoder10 to remove the sentences that the length is more than 250 words or three times difference in length between source and target sentences." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 884, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{8}$ https://iso639-3.sil.org/sites/ iso639-3/files/downloads/iso-639-3.tab ${}^{9}$ https://github.com/facebookresearch/ fairseq/edit/main/examples/ backtranslation/deduplicatelines.py ${}^{10}$ https://github.com/moses-smt/ mosesdecoder", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 831, + 865, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7https://opus.nlpl.eu/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 336, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11529", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 5: Train-Dev-Test Split Different traindev-test split schemes are developed based on the data quantity.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1) A parallel data with more than 6,000 sentence pairs. We randomly sample separately about 2,000 sentence pairs as validation and test set, respectively. And the rest is train set.", + "2) A parallel data with fewer than 6,000 sentence pairs. We take $80\\%$ , $10\\%$ , $10\\%$ of all samples as train, validation, and test." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 133, + 487, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To avoid any overlap between our training data and used benchmark test data, we filter all sentences that exist in the common benchmarks (WMT, Flores-101) from our train and validation set.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 244, + 487, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 6: Data Preprocessing The data preprocessing consists of two main steps:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 319, + 487, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1) Sampling: Because the full dataset is huge, we sample some data for our training. The final dataset contains 1,307,143,514 sentence pairs, 433 languages, and 1,922 training pairs.", + "2) Preprocessing: The data is preprocess using the SentencePiece tokenizer provided by Fan et al. (2021) with a shared vocabulary of size 128,112." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 487, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8cf334fcd3e7f4e993a7b3fde5c4eed00f74eab189f0531b138cc3a65d41defd.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OriginalReplacedOriginalReplacedOriginalReplaced
akakaeses_HNptpt_BR
amamheses_ECptpt_br
araraeses_COptpt_PT
arar_SYfafa_IRrnrun
arar_TNfafa_AFrwkin
ayaymfffulsnsna
azaz_IRfrfr_FRsosom
bgbg_BGfrfr_CAsrsrp
bmbamfrfr_BEsrsr_ME
bnbn_INfrfr_castsot
cacathahauswswa
dada_DKhihi_INtata_LK
dede_CHigibotgtg_TJ
dede_ATitit_ITtitir
dede_DEjpjaptltl_PH
eses_CLkrkautrtr_TR
eses_SVkvkpvurur_PK
eses_NIlnlinvivi_VN
eses_UYmgmlgwowol
eses_PEmsms_MYxhxho
eses_VEnbnb_NOyoyor
eses_ARndsnds_nlzeze_zh
eses_MXnlnl_NLzeze_en
eses_PAnlnl_BEzhzh_cn
eses_CRnnnn_NOzhzh_CN
eses_PRnono_nbzthradzh_HK
eses_ESnynyazthradzh_TW
eses_GTomormzthradzh_tw
eses_DOpapanzuzul
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 475, + 485, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Code Replacement List. We use the codes in the column \"Original\" to replace the codes in the column \"replaced\" if these replaced codes exist in OPUS.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 778, + 487, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11530", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/714e537103f3fc694b8872de0c37fe861e30fbf9b79a9bd7357772b18b21aeff.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CodeEnDeArZhNeAzCeb
#Sentence Pairs811,238,712360,369,144152,457,83092,763,4456,654,2704,208,0251,683,531
", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 105, + 865, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c7e3f0dc16c344b1a92d8e69726c0412903e98d198df16c401af7d6b2188150d.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: The number of sentence pairs for each core language in Lego-MT training," + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDataset
crpbible-uedincbMultiCCAlignedszMultiCCAlignedsgnQEDcyclTatoeba
tcEUbookshopcxMultiCCAlignedzzMultiCCAlignediroQEDnahTatoeba
zhsGlobalVoicesnsMultiCCAlignedzeOpenSubtitlesmoQED,Ubuntu
zhtGlobalVoicesqdMultiCCAlignedbhQEDberQED,Ubuntu
tmpGNOMEqaMultiCCAlignedbntQEDtokiTatoeba
grGNOMEtzMultiCCAlignedryQEDkzjTatoeba
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 227, + 867, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7a63764c200827865e1bcd7a9e1d50c48cba3cc114d155335f5281858f160e5d.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Unknown Language Codes, which are out of ISO 639 series. We can't confirm their full names." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCode
AbkhazianabCorsicancoIbaniblaLower SorbiandsbOssetianosSwahili (macrolanguage)sw
AchineseaceCreecrIcelandicisLukpadopOttoman Turkish (1500-1928)otaSwtiss
Achuar-ShiwiaracuCreekmusIdoioLuo (Kenya and Tanzania)luoPaite ChinpckSwedishsv
AdygheadyCrimean TatarchrIgboigLushootseedlutPalaunpauSwiss Germangsw
AfaraaCroatianhrIlokiloLuxembourgishlbPalipiSyriacsyr
AfrihiliafhCusco QuechuaquzIndonesianidLuyialuyPampangapamTachawitshy
AfrikaansafCzechcsIngrianizhMacedonianmkPangasinanpagTachelihshi
AguarunaagrDanishdaInghushinhMacedo-RomanianrupPanjabipaTagal Murutmvv
Ainu (Japan)ainDariprsInterlinguaiaMaduresemadPapiamentopapTagalogtl
AkanakDinkadinInterlingueieMaithilimaiPapuan MalaypmyTahaggart Tamahaqthv
AkawaioakeDrentsdrtInuktitutiuMalagasymgPedinsoTahitianty
AkanlonaklDungandngInupiaqikMalay (individual language)zlmPennsylvania GermanpdcTajiktg
AlbaniansqDutchnlIranian PersianpesMalay (macrolanguage)msPersianfaTalusssantzl
Algerian ArabicarqDutton World SpeedwordsdwsIrishgaMalayalammlPhoenicianphnTalyshtly
American Sign LanguageaseDzongkhadzItalianitMaltesemtPicardpedTamashektmh
AmharicamEastern Canadian InuktitutikeJakunjakMammamPiemontesepmsTamilta
Ancient Greek (to 1453)grcEastern MarimhrJamaican Creole EnglishjamMambaemgnPipilpplTarifitrif
Ancient HebrewhboEastern Maroon CreoledjkJapanesejaMandarin ChinesecmnPlateau MalagasypltTase Naganst
ArabicarEfikefiJavanesejvManxgvPolishplTatartt
ArgonesseanEgyptian ArabicartzJewish Babylonian AramaictmrMaorimiPortugueseptTelugute
ArmenianhyEmilianeglKabylekabMarathimrPotawatomipotTena Lowland Quichuaqw
ArpitanfrpEnglishenKadazan DusundtpMarshallesemhPrussianprgTetelingino Nahuatlnhg
AsháninkacniErzyamyvKalaallusitklMesopotamian ArabicacmPushtopsTetumtet
AssameseasEsperantoeoKalmykxalMiahuatlán ZapoteczamQuechuaquThaith
AsturianastEstonianetKamba (Kenya)kamMiddle English (1100-1500)emmQuenyaqyaTibetanbo
AvaricavEvenkievnKamadaknMiddle French (ca. 1400-1600)frmQuitopepec ChinantechchqTigrinyati
AvestanaeEweeeKanurikrMikasukimikRapanuirapTohono O'odhamood
AwadiyaawaExtremaduranextKaçchikelcakMi'kmaqmicRomanianroTok Pisintpi
AymaraayFaroeosefoKaraliankrlMin Dong ChinesecdoRomanshrnTonga (Tonga Islands)to
AzerbaijanazFiji HindihifKashmiriksMin Nan ChinesenanRomanyromTraditional Chinesezhtrad
BaluchibalFijianfjKashubiancsbMinangkabauminRundirnTsongats
BambarabmFilipinofilKazakhkkMingrelianxmfRussianruTswanatn
BanjarbjnFinnishfiKekchikekMirandesemwIRusynrueTupitpw
Barasana-EduriabsnFrenchfrKhakasikjhMiskitomiqSamoansmTurkishtr
BashkirbaFriulianfurKhasikhaModern Greek (1453-)elSamogtiansgsTurkmentk
BasqueeuFulahffKhemerkmMohawkmohSangosgTuvalutvl
BavarianbarGalelagbiK'iche'qucMongolianmnSanskritsaTwitw
BaybayanonbvyGalicianglKikuyukikMorisienymfeSantalisatUab Metoaoz
BelarusianbeGan ChineseganKinyarwandarwMoroccan ArabicarySardinianscUdmurtudm
Bemba (Zambia)bemGandalgKirghizkyMossimosSatterffriesischstqUighurug
BengalibnGarhwaligbmKlingonthhNaurunaScotsscoUkrainianuk
BerombornGeorgiankaKoaatikuNavajonvScottish GaelicgdUmappk
BhojpuribhoGermandeKölschkshNeapolitannapSediqtrvUmbunduumb
BislamabiGheg AlbanianalnKomiikvNepali (individual language)npiSerbiansrUpper Sorbianhsb
Bodo (India)brxGilbertesegilKomii-PermyakkoiNepali (macrolanguage)neSerbo-CroatianshUrduur
BosnianbsGoan KonkanigomKongokgNigerian FulfuldefuvShanshnUspanteccousp
BretonbrGothicgotKoreankoNiueanniuShonasnUzbekuz
BritheningbztGroningsgosKotavaavkNogainogShuarjvVendave
BuginesebugGuadeloupean Creole FrenchgcfKriangngtNorth Levantine ArabicapcSchuswapshsVenetianvec
BulgarianbgGuaranignKuanyamakjNorth Molucan MalaymaxSicilianscnVietnamesevi
BuraitibuaGuerrero AmuzgoamuKurdishkuNorthern FrisianfrrSilesianszlVlaamsvls
BurmesemyGuerrero NahuatlnguKven FinnishfkvNorthern KurdishkmrSindarinsjnVolapukvo
CabecarcjpGujaratguLaidanldnNorthern SamiseSindisdWalloonwa
CamsékbhGulf ArabicafbLadinlldNorthwestern OjibwaobjSinhalasiWalserwae
CatalancaHaidahaiLadinoladNorwegiannoSlovakskWaray (Philippines)war
CebuanocebHaitianhtLakotalktNorwegian BokmålnbSlovenianslWelshcy
Central Huasteca NahuatlnchHakka ChincnhLaoloNorwegian NynorsknnSomalisoWestern Frisanfy
Central KurdishckbHakka ChinesehakLatgalianltgNovialnovSouth AzerbaijaniazbWestern Panjabipnb
Central SamasmlHausahaLatinlaNuernusSouth NdebelenrWolaytawal
ChamorrochHawaiianhawLatvianlvNyanjanySouthern KurdishsdhWolofwo
ChavacanocbkHebrewheLigurianlijOccitan (post 1500)ocSouthern SamismaWu Chinesewuu
ChechenceHilgaynonhilLimburganliOld English (ca. 450-1100)angSouthern SothostXhosaxh
CherokeechrHindihiLingalalnOld French (842-ca. 1400)froSouthwestern DinkadikYakutsah
ChhattisgarhihneHiri MotuhoLingua Franca NovalfnOld FrisanofsSpanishesYaquiyqa
ChinesezhHmong DawmwwLiterary ChineselzhOld NorsenonStandard MalayzsmYiddishyi
ChoctawchoHohocLithuanianltOld RussianovrStandard Moroccan TamazightzghYorubayo
Church SlaviccuHuastechusLivlivOld SpanishospSumeriansuxZarmadje
ChuvashcvHungarianhuLojbanjboOriya (macrolanguage)orSundanesesuZazaza
CopticcopHunsrikhrxLomburdlmoOrizaba NahuatlnlvSwaibanswgZuluzu
CornishkwHupahupLow GermanndsOromoomSwahili (individual language)swh
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 401, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: List of Languages. Our dataset mainly use ISO 639 series as language code. For traditional Chinese, we define “zhtrad” as code.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 860, + 882, + 890 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11531", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A For every submission:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 322, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section \"Limitation\"", + "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? see the abstract and introduction in the paper.", + "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 126, + 695, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 299, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 321, + 213, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank.", + "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix", + "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix" + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 346, + 880, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Did you run computational experiments?", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 492, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 788, + 146, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? see section 4.4.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 810, + 880, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 877, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 433, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11532", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? see section 4.3.", + "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? see section 4.", + "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? see section 4.3" + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 83, + 878, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 877, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Left blank.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 313, + 213, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank.", + "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 340, + 878, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11533", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_model.json b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c13487eb98bdb2f1d3214a876bb320ccf3d3206 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2839 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.084, + 0.731, + 0.122 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT: Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.13, + 0.886, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei Yuan\\(^{1}\\), Yinquan Lu\\(^{1}\\), Wenhao Zhu\\(^{2}\\), Lingpeng Kong\\(^{3}\\), Lei Li\\(^{4}\\), Yu Qiao\\(^{1}\\), Jingjing Xu\\(^{1}\\) \n\\(^{1}\\) Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.166, + 0.85, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\) National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.182, + 0.8, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 The University of Hong Kong, 4 University of California, Santa Barbara" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.2, + 0.888, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yuanfei, luyinquan, qiaoyu}@pjlab.org.cn, zhuwh@smail.nju.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.216, + 0.852, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lpk@cs.hku.hk,leili@cs.ucsb.edu,jingjingxupku.02@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.284, + 0.461, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) aims to build a unified model for many language directions. Existing monolithic models for MNMT encounter two challenges: parameter interference among languages and inefficient inference for large models. In this paper, we revisit the classic multi-way structures and develop a detachable model by assigning each language (or group of languages) to an individual branch that supports plug-and-play training and inference. To address the needs of learning representations for all languages in a unified space, we propose a novel efficient training recipe, upon which we build an effective detachable model, Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we collect data from OPUS and build a translation benchmark covering 433 languages and 1.3B parallel data. Experiments show that Lego-MT with 1.2B parameters brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. It even outperforms M2M-100 with 12B parameters. The proposed training recipe brings a \\(28.2 \\times\\) speedup over the conventional multi-way training method.\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.641, + 0.26, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.668, + 0.491, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) translates languages by mapping a source sentence to a unified representation space and decoding a target sentence from this space (Johnson et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Neubig and Hu, 2018; Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Traditional MNMT models use a shared network to align representations in different languages. Recently, scaling up the size of MNMT models brings significant quantitative improvements and new qualitative capabilities (M2M-100, Fan et al. 2021; NLLB-200, Costa-jussa et al. 2022; inter alia). Beyond MNMT, recent large-scale language models (e.g., ChatGPT) also show promising results on zero-shot (or" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.273, + 0.843, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.392, + 0.886, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Multi-way architecture. (1) Monolithic Model is the fully-shared model for all translation directions; (2) Lego-MT is a multi-way structure that includes both multilingual (denoted as M) and language-specific encoders and decoders for English (denoted as E), Chinese (denoted as C) and Nepali (denotes as N). The architecture is detachable at inference time where only a specific encoder and decoder are needed. U (Unified space) represents hidden representations generated by encoders." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.548, + 0.885, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "few-shot) translation, especially for language-to-English translation. Despite great potential, there is still a large gap between LLMs and existing MNMT models on massive translation directions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simply using a shared model for massive MNMT brings new effectiveness and efficiency issues. First, memorizing multilingual knowledge within finite parameters causes parameter interference (Ha et al., 2016a), especially between high-resource and low-resource languages (Li and Gong, 2021), which leads to significant performance degradation. Second, the centralization feature requires all parameters to be included in the computation graph during the inference stage, resulting in heavy computational overhead (Song et al., 2021). Common fixes of these issues include adapter-based approaches (Zhu et al., 2021), which handle parameter interference via fine-tuning new parameters to fit bilingual translation, and mixture-of-expert (MoE), which supports dynamic activation. These methods either fail to adapt to massive translation directions or require all parameters to be loaded into memory, thus remaining unsatisfactory consid-" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.461, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "'https://github.com/CONE-MT/Lego-MT." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11518" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 11518-11533 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.452, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ering the efficiency of training and inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.101, + 0.49, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To find out the best recipe for massive multilingual translation, we revisit the classic multi-way (or multi-branch) architecture (Dong et al., 2015; Firat et al., 2016), whose philosophy is to allocate an individual encoder and decoder for each language (or group of languages), as shown in Figure 1. The immediate benefit of this structure is: 1) The utilization of individual modules for specific languages mitigates parameter interference; 2) Each branch can be independently loaded during inference, significantly reducing computational costs and decreasing inference latency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.295, + 0.49, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite appealing, there remain two big challenges when training multi-way structures: representation alignment between different languages due to the lack of shared parameters; and low GPU efficiency during training because unused parameters occupy GPU memory but do not have any computations. Furthermore, the feature of random language mixture in a batch makes it infeasible to use an online-loading method (i.e., loading during usage) to accelerate training since it will cause impractical IO communication costs during batch switching (between CPU and GPU)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.488, + 0.49, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these challenges, we propose a novel training recipe, which results in our new detachable model, Lego-MT. We classify the training data into different language-centric groups such that we only need to load specific branches into GPU memory, eliminating the need to load different modules constantly. The language-centric group is trained in sequential order. Second, during each language-centric training, we introduce a multilingual branch and propose a new triple-flow method to help a model learn to map to and translate from a unified space. Specifically, a unified space is a type of representation space rather than a module. It creates a common representation of language that can be used across multiple language tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.729, + 0.49, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate our training recipe for massive MNMT, we construct a many-to-many translation dataset\\(^2\\) covering 7 language-centric groups, 433 languages, based on the open-source website OPUS\\(^3\\) (Tiedemann, 2012)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.809, + 0.49, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT-1.2B yields average gains of 3.2 spBLEU, and even outperforms M2M-100-12B which has \\(10 \\times\\) inference parameters. Furthermore, the proposed training recipe brings a \\(28.2 \\times\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "speedup compared with the conventional multiway training method. We also conduct comprehensive experiments on branch combinations, thanks to the detachable nature of the model. We find that low-resource languages prefer multilingual branches and high-resource languages prefer language-specific branches. In addition, we also observe that the unseen combination of a high-resource language encoder and a high-resource language decoder can achieve better performance, showing that Lego-MT can align different branches into a unified space effectively. The main contributions can be summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.295, + 0.884, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We build an effective detachable model LegoMT for multilingual machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.328, + 0.884, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Experiments demonstrate that Lego-MT brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. This training recipe results in a \\(28.2 \\times\\) training speedup compared with the naive multi-branch architecture." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.392, + 0.882, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We construct a massive multilingual translation dataset covering 433 languages, which greatly extends the scale of languages." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.295, + 0.884, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.456, + 0.666, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.484, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this part, we review recent related multilingual machine translation models. We classify them into three categories: fully / group-shared (Dabre et al., 2020), and Mixture-of-expert (MoE)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The fully-shared model is the most prevalent model in Multilingual Neural Machine Translation (MNMT). This model employs a single architecture to translate in all directions (Ha et al., 2016b; Johnson et al., 2017; Bapna et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021) and has demonstrated efficacy in aiding low-resource directions. However, fully-shared models are often subject to capacity bottlenecks and trade-offs between translation quality and the number of languages (Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020; Ha et al., 2016a). Group-shared models incorporate individual parameters for each group and represent a popular solution for sharing language-specific encoders or decoders (Lee et al., 2017; Zoph and Knight, 2016). Lee et al. (2017); Sachan and Neubig (2018); Ji et al. (2020); Lyu et al. (2020); Sachan and Neubig (2018) proposed an MNMT model only for shared language-specific modules. LaSS (Lin et al., 2021) learns language-specific sub-networks for each language direction for multilingual translation. Adpater methods (Bapna and Firat, 2019; Zhu et al., 2021)" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2The dataset is released on https://github.com/ CONE-MT/Lego-MT.git." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.905, + 0.332, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://opus.nlpl.eu." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11519" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.081, + 0.835, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.297, + 0.885, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overview of Lego-MT and training recipe. During training, we introduce an efficient training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. The language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. During each training phase, only language-specific parameters are loaded into GPU memory. The training maintains three flows: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (Multilingual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. U means the unified space, hidden representations generated by encoders." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.422, + 0.49, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "add additional side networks to each language direction in addition to the main multilingual Transformer encoder-decoder. While these studies can alleviate the capacity bottleneck to some extent, challenges remain when handling larger-scale languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.558, + 0.49, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) has recently emerged as a prominent research direction (Jacobs et al., 1991; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussa et al., 2022), which are sparsely activated, with each inference only activating a subset of parameters. Researchers have applied MoE to massively multilingual translation and introduced various regularization strategies to enhance performance (Dai et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). Despite promising results, MoE's objective differs from ours, as it still requires the entire structure to be stored in GPU memory during inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The encoder-decoder structure has demonstrated considerable flexibility through the utilization of the Lego-NN (Dalmia et al., 2022). The Lego-NN can be applied to various tasks with decoder modules being detachable, in contrast, the Lego-MT model design allows for the performance of massively MNMT with all modules being detachable." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.421, + 0.628, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Lego-MT" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.447, + 0.631, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Overview" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.468, + 0.885, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper aims to build a detachable multi-branch model with a language (or group)-specific encoder and a language (or group)-specific decoder. As shown in Figure 2, the detachable structure provides an effective mechanism to only load a part of modules during training and inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.566, + 0.885, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During training, we introduce a new training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. During each training phase, only language-centric data and related branches are loaded. All language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. We empirically found that the orders contribute little to the final performance and we fix the training order for simplification in the next parts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.711, + 0.885, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During each language-centric training phase, we introduce a multi-lingual branch to help language-specific branches learn to encode to a unified space and decode from a unified space. Unified Space is a concept that aims to map all languages into a unified representation space without any parameters. This concept is used in natural language processing and machine learning to create a common representation of language (Lyu et al., 2020; Fan et al., 2021) that can be used across different languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The training maintains triple-flow: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (multilin" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11520" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.089, + 0.381, + 0.103 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: Triple-flow training." + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.104, + 0.85, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Epoch number \\(L\\). Training data for Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow: \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow t_N}\\}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow \\cdot} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_N}\\}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow \\lg},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow \\lg},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow \\lg}\\}\\), respectively. The parameters used for Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow are initialized as \\(\\theta_{m} = \\theta_{0}\\) and \\(\\theta_{e} = \\theta_{0}\\). Note, the parameters used for Dec-Flow are initialized as \\(\\theta_d = \\theta_m\\) after training of Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. \nfor epoch \\(l = 1\\) to \\(L\\) do \n Shuffle \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow}\\). to obtain a new training sequence. \nfor each batch \\(\\mathcal{D}_e\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow}\\). do \n Evaluate the objective by Equation 2 on \\(\\mathcal{D}_e\\): \\(l_e = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_b} - \\log P_{\\theta_e}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})\\) \n Get a minibatch of multilingual data \\(\\mathcal{D}_m\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}}\\) \n Evaluate the objective by Equation 1 on \\(\\mathcal{D}_m\\): \\(l_m = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_m} - \\log P_{\\theta_m}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})\\) \n Update \\(\\theta_{m}\\) and \\(\\theta_{e}\\) by: \\(\\theta_{m}\\gets \\theta_{m} - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_{m}}(l_{m} + l_{e})\\) and \\(\\theta_{e}\\gets \\theta_{e} - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_{e}}l_{e}\\) \nend \nend \nfor epoch \\(l = 1\\) to \\(L\\) do \n Shuffle \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}\\) to obtain a new training sequence. \nfor each batch \\(\\mathcal{D}_d\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}\\) do \n Calculate \\(\\mathcal{D}_d\\) by Equation 3: \\(l_d = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_d} - \\log P_{\\theta_d}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})\\) \n Update \\(\\theta_d\\): \\(\\theta_d\\gets \\theta_d - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_d}l_d\\) \nend" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.395, + 0.489, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. Surprisingly, we find that Dec-flow cannot be trained together with Mix/Enc-flow, resulting in catastrophic forgetting in the multilingual encoder (detailed discussion in Section 5). Therefore, the basic training processes can be briefly divided into two stages: the Mix/Enc-Flow phase and the Dec-Flow phase." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.573, + 0.489, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During inference, there are three alternative flows in Lego-MT for language-centric translation to be translated (\"Inference Stage\" in Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, users can decide to choose which path for inference." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.67, + 0.327, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Triple-Flow Training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a multilingual dataset with \\(N\\) languages, \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow t_N}\\}\\), where each \\(\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j}\\) contains a parallel data from the source language \\(S_{i}\\) to the target language \\(T_{j}\\), \\(s_i\\) refers to the \\(i\\)-th (\\(i\\in N\\)) language being translated from, \\(t_j\\) represents the \\(j\\)-th (\\(j\\in N\\)) language being translated into, respectively. Specifically, one-to-many multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be expressed as \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to \\cdot} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_N}\\}\\). Similarly, the many-to-one multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be denoted as \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\to \\lg} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\to \\lg},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\to \\lg},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\to \\lg}\\}\\). All input sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.395, + 0.885, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tag) to indicate the source language and target languages. During each training phase, we have tripleflows playing for different rules, Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.47, + 0.646, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.1 Mix-Flow" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.49, + 0.884, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mix-Flow is built upon a multilingual encoder branch and a multilingual decoder branch. It is trained on multilingual to multilingual data. This flow learns a mapping function \\( f \\) from a sentence in any language to another language. All language data is mixed together. The input source sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language tag) to indicate the source languages. Following traditional methods, we also add a target language tag in the decoder part. The training loss for a Mix-Flow is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.679, + 0.884, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {m} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\mathrm {m u l t i}}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {m}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{y} \\) is a pair sampled from multilingual training data. It is used to avoid over-fitting language-specific data in Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.787, + 0.645, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.2 Enc-Flow" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Enc-Flow includes a language-specific encoder and a multilingual decoder. It is trained with one-to-many multilingual data. The structure of such a design is natural for language-specific encoder training: the encoder input data comes from the same source language lg, and the decoder is multi-lingual data. The language tag is also added to the encoder" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11521" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and decoder parts. The training loss for language-specific Enc-Flow is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.13, + 0.488, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {e} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\lg \\rightarrow}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {e}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.178, + 0.489, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\) is a pair sampled from one-to-many training data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.221, + 0.25, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.3 Dec-Flow" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.241, + 0.49, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dec-Flow includes a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder. It is trained with many-to-one translation. We separate the training of Dec-Flow from the training of Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow. The parameters used for training Dec-Flow are initialized with the latest model trained by Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. The language tag is also added to the encoder and decoder parts. Given a many-to-one dataset \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\rightarrow \\lg}\\), the training loss is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.183, + 0.4, + 0.488, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {d} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {d}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.448, + 0.487, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\) is a pair sampled from many-to-one training data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.493, + 0.317, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Training Algorithm" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.515, + 0.49, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 shows the whole training procedure. We will go into the effects of the two-stage design in Section 5. In the first stage, we initialize each module of the Lego-MT model with a pre-trained MT model \\(\\theta_0\\). After initialization, we shuffle a one-to-many dataset to obtain a new training sequence for Enc-Flow training. In the second stage, we fix the encoder parameter of M-Flow \\(\\theta_m\\) and learn the D-Flow decoder \\(\\theta_d\\). The iteration keeps running for \\(L\\) epochs. During inference, users can decide to load which flow for inference. We also evaluate the gap between these inference flows in experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.721, + 0.262, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.748, + 0.489, + 0.796 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While Lego-MT is generic, we focus the experiments on M2M-100-1.2B as backbone models since M2M-100 is a leading MT model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.809, + 0.221, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.831, + 0.49, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training Data We create a Many-to-Many dataset from OPUS4. We build a dataset covering 7 language-specific data and 433 languages. The 7 core languages are En, Zh, De, Ar, Ne, Az, Ceb." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The specifics of the construction process are delineated in Appendix A. All training pairs have been deduplicated with Flores-101." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.133, + 0.885, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation Data We use Flores-101 (Fan et al., 2021) as the evaluation set, which provides human-written translation pairs covering 101 languages. Since M2M-100 baselines only cover 86 languages, we only compare Lego-MT with baselines on 86 languages5. We evaluate \\(7 \\times 85\\) translation directions in total." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.256, + 0.63, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.276, + 0.884, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct experiments by using a pre-trained multilingual machine translation model: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021) as initialization. We build 7 language-specific encoders and 7 language-specific decoders to model 7 core languages. We compare Lego-MT with the following baselines." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.373, + 0.885, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flores-175MB / 615MB Flores-101 (Goyal et al., 2022) furnishes two baseline models, with parameter sizes of 175MB and 615MB respectively, constructed on M2M-100." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.437, + 0.884, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M2M-100-418M It is the smallest model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is a base-version Transformer model with 12 encoders and 12 decoders with 4,096 hidden state units." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.502, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M2M-100-1.2B It is a Transformer model released by Fan et al. (2021) with 24 encoders and 24 decoders with 8,192 hidden state units." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.884, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M2M-100-12B It is the largest single M2M-100 model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is obtained by adding language-specific layers to M2M-100-1.2B model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric Fine-Tuning To build a fair comparison, we also use the constructed dataset to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. We follow the standard fine-tuning paradigm, which uses a Transformer initialized with M2M-100-1.2B. In this baseline, we only use LG-centric data to train models. We simply merge all translation pairs related to language LG together to get the mixed training data. Like our model does, we also add language code in the encoder and decoder parts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual Fine-Tuning In order to establish an equitable comparison, the constructed dataset was utilized to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. All translation data was amalgamated" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.846, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5These 86 languages are: af, am, ar, ast, be, bg, bn, bs, ca, ceb, cs, cy, da, de, el, en, es, et, fa, ff, fi, fr, ga, gl, gu, ha, he, hi, hr, hu, hy, id, ig, is, it, ja, jv, ka, kk, km, kn, ko, lb, lg, ln, lo, lt, lv, mk, ml, mn, mr, ms, my, ne, nl, no, ns, oc, or, pa, pl, ps, pt, ro, ru, sd, sk, sl, so, sr, sv, sw, ta, th, tl, tr, uk, ur, uz, vi, wo, xh, yo, zh, zu." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.337, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://opus.nlpl.eu/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11522" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.884, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelParam.X → EnX → ZhX → DeX → ArX → NeX → AzX → CebAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.115.77.211.24.60.63.03.16.5
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.321.210.314.211.51.32.44.99.4
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.521.611.016.18.81.04.75.39.8
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.026.312.919.38.11.44.66.811.3
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.028.013.321.315.12.96.48.813.7
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.027.913.019.517.25.54.20.512.5
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.027.413.920.915.212.19.410.315.6
8: Lego-MT× 1.030.716.423.818.215.011.915.118.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.201, + 0.884, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelParam.En → XZh → XDe → XAr → XNe → XAz → XCeb → XAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.112.77.811.66.92.22.85.47.1
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.317.310.114.111.54.04.26.19.6
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.518.011.115.611.25.24.37.910.5
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.021.513.117.712.67.16.19.512.5
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.024.714.920.316.49.76.212.515.0
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.021.310.915.814.93.93.01.510.2
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.021.813.518.414.713.411.112.415.0
8: Lego-MT× 1.025.016.321.418.417.013.516.818.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.329, + 0.884, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Translation results on Flores-101. The top group shows the results of many-to-one translation and the bottom part shows the results of one-to-many settings. We display the spBLEU on the devtest of Flores-101. Each cell represents the average performance of translating from the rest languages. “Param.” represents the number of required parameters during inference. Baseline 7 has the exact same training data with Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we use Mix-Flow in Lego-MT for all translation pairs. Lego-MT outperforms M2M-100-1.2B w. multilingual fine-tuning by a large margin, with an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU (3.1 on many-to-one translation and 3.3 on one-to-many translation)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.454, + 0.489, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for the purpose of fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B in this baseline. Correspondingly, language codes were incorporated in both the encoder and decoder components, as is done in our model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.529, + 0.317, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Settings and Metric" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.549, + 0.49, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training Details The training code is bulit on the code repository fairseq6. Each flow is initialized with a pre-trained M2M-100-1.2B model. We train all models using Adam optimizer with \\(\\beta_{1} = 0.9\\), \\(\\beta_{2} = 0.999\\), the learning rate is set to 1e-4, and the max token number is set as 8,000. The training of all centric languages is conducted in random order: En, De, Ne, Az, Ceb, Ar, Zh. We split the whole dataset into 70 shards. And the whole training process takes around 15 days on 32 A100 GPUs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Metric We use the same evaluation metric (spBLEU) in the Flores-101 dataset. Before computing BLEU, we de-tokenized all data and then apply sentence piece tokenization for each language. It facilitates a more accurate assessment of model quality on the long-tail of low-resource languages." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.818, + 0.22, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.838, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT is an efficient translation model, outperforming M2M-100-12B with only \\(10\\%\\) inference parameters Table 1 show experiment results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.454, + 0.885, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on the Flores-101 devtest set. As we can see, LegoMT is an efficient translation model that achieves large performance improvements over M2M-100-1.2B, with 7.4 spBLEU improvements on many-to-one translation and 5.8 spBLEU improvements on one-to-many translation. It even outperforms M2M-100-12B especially on one many-to-one settings, with a gain of 5.0 spBLEU. As a comparison, with the same training data, a shared model M2M-100-1.2B only obtains slight performance improvements, 4.3 spBLEU on many-to-one translation, and 2.5 spBLEU on one-to-many translation. These results demonstrate Lego-MT provides an effective solution by using fewer inference parameters to achieve higher results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared with high-resource translation, low-resource translation benefits more from multiway architectures. We observe that the improvements achieved by Lego-MT are not equally contributed by different languages. As we can see from Table 1, X→Ne, X→Az, and X→Ceb obtain more obvious improvements than X→En, X→Zh, and X→De. On X→Ne translation, Lego-MT even gets 13.6 improvements over M2M-100-1.2B. These results are consistent with previous studies about parameter interference in massive multilingual machine translation that low-resource translation usually suffers. With less parameter interference, Lego" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.473, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{6}\\)https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/tree/main/examples/m2m_100." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11523" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.471, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MT gets higher low-resource translation results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.49, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multilingual branches play a significant role in avoiding over-fitting. As we can see from Table 1, only fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B on language-centric data has serious over-fitting problems that the performance is dropped sharply, especially on low-resource settings, with a loss of 3.2 spBLEU on \\(\\mathrm{Ne} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}\\) translation and 3.1 spBLEU on \\(\\mathrm{Az} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}\\) translation. Like this baseline, Lego-MT also introduces language-specific parameters but does not show any performance drop. The key difference between Lego-MT with M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric fine-tuning lies in that Lego-MT introduces multilingual branches as regularization, demonstrating that the unified space can avoid catastrophic forgetting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.352, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT supports efficient training, which is \\(28.2 \\times\\) faster than multi-way training. For simplification, we implement an 8-branch architecture where Lego-MT and the multi-way model both have 8 branches for encoder and decoders. We use Chinese-centric data in the first shard and select \\(7\\mathrm{Zh} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Zh}\\) translations as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). For two models, all 8 encoder branches are initialized with the encoder part of M2M-100-418M, and all 8 decoder branches are initialized with the decoder part of M2M-100-418M. Due to the large parameter size, the multi-way model requires fewer tokens in a single batch. Lego-MT has less parameter size during each inference and thus can support more tokens in a single batch. For a fair comparison, we use the same settings for two models and set the number of tokens in a single batch to 3K. Due to the low GPU efficiency issues, the multi-way model takes 16.9 hours to finish one shard training on average while Lego-MT only takes 0.6 hours." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The total training cost of Lego-MT is only about twice that of M2M-1.2B fine-tuning. In the first stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific encoder, and in the second stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific decoder. Compared to M2M-1.2B, the additional computations come from training language-specific parameters. Since the language-specific branch has the same size as the multilingual branch, the training costs only double. We believe that the training costs for such a model are reasonable, given its one-time training" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Method#TokensSize (GB)Time (Hour)
Multi-Way Training3,00060.916.9
Lego-MT Training3,00010.30.6
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.143, + 0.885, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Training efficiency of Lego-MT and a multi-way model. \"#Tokens\" represent the maximum tokens in a single batch during training. For a fair comparison, we initialize an 8-branch Lego-MT and an 8-branch multi-way model with M2M-100-418M as initialization. Size represents the size of the loaded parameters. \"Time\" represents the total time of completing all data (We select a small subset of training data for evaluation). In Lego-MT, we use a parallel thread for branch switching, which does not affect the running time. Lego-MT supports efficient training, which achieves \\(28.2 \\times\\) speedups over multi-way training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.342, + 0.885, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "feature. In real-world applications with unlimited data, inference costs are more critical than training costs. The advantage of Lego-MT is that it largely improves translation performance without incurring additional inference costs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.439, + 0.733, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis on Lego-MT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.468, + 0.885, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation studies on triple-Flow training We design three flows in Lego-MT: Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Mix-Flow contains a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder, which is essential in regularizing language-specific training. We start from M-Flow and see how Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow affect the final performance, which gives more insights into the design of our framework. For simplification, we use Chinese-centric data in top-10 shards and select \\(7\\mathrm{Zh}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{X}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Zh}\\) translation pairs as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). We train Lego-MT on the selected set and observe results in Table 3. We can see that jointly training Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow boosts the performance in most directions. In contrast, jointly training Dec-Flow and Mix-Flow causes large performance degeneration. It is mainly because that language-specific decoder may cause a large distribution shift on multilingual encoders, resulting in catastrophic forgetting. That's why we split the training into two stages and keeps Dec-Flow in the second stage." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analysis on inference path section Due to the plug-and-play features, there are several possible inference paths for a single translation direction. At the inference stage, there are three alternative solutions for language-centric translation: Mix-Flow," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11524" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.083, + 0.483, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LangMix-FlowDec-Flow + Mix-FlowEnc-Flow + Mix-Flow
x→zhzh→xx→zhzh→xx→zhzh→x
Be8.13.57.53.313.16.1
De16.014.714.013.422.119.2
Fa13.111.911.611.317.715.1
Jv6.33.16.03.18.83.3
Ne9.65.68.74.27.24.0
Pa1.41.11.20.51.80.5
Sw8.58.67.56.612.412.4
AVG.9.06.98.16.111.98.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.218, + 0.489, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation studies on Triple-Flow training. \\(\\rightarrow\\)zh refers to the results of translating to zh and \\(\\mathrm{zh}\\rightarrow\\)refers to the results of translating from zh. Dec-Flow brings a large performance drop." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.29, + 0.487, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelCeb→HaCeb→IgCeb→LnCeb→YoAVG.
M-1.2B5.55.90.92.43.7
M-12B8.710.80.92.95.8
M-FT6.46.60.82.14.0
Lego-MT12.513.92.33.28.0
ModelHa→CebIg→CebLn→CebYo→CebAVG.
M-1.2B7.47.54.23.45.6
M-12B8.88.83.84.16.4
M-FT7.58.63.74.86.2
Lego-MT12.312.36.26.79.4
ModelX→AstX→DaX→HuX→LoAVG.
M-1.2B16.722.017.74.815.3
M-12B13.023.319.19.016.1
M-FT13.823.217.80.913.9
Lego-MT15.425.420.15.616.6
ModelAst→XDa→XHu→XLo→XAVG.
M-1.2B13.218.316.06.613.5
M-12B15.220.918.28.815.8
M-FT14.417.915.55.813.4
Lego-MT15.520.818.18.915.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.545, + 0.49, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: The results on unseen directions that are not covered by the constructed dataset. \"M\" means M2M-100. Lego-MT shows the best generalization results. \"M-FT\" means M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual FT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.629, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Figure 2 shows the comparison between these inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg., Ceb, Az, Ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). High-resource languages (eg., En, De, Zh, Ar) prefer language-specific branches. Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths. This demonstrates that specific parameters are more important when the amount of data in a language is huge. In summary, the Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) is recommended for inference tasks with low-resource languages, and the Dec-FLow (M-encoder + D-decoder) is more appropriate for high-resource languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT can learn the align different branches" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.59, + 0.085, + 0.805, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.214, + 0.885, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The comparison between different inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg. ceb, az, ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). For high-resource languages (eg., en, de, zh, ar), Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.591, + 0.347, + 0.803, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.474, + 0.885, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The spBLEU gap between Mix-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder) and unseen language-specific Flow (the combination of a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder). Positive numbers mean the results of the language-specific Flow are better than that of the M-Flow. The unseen language-specific Flow achieves better results on 9 out of 12 directions, demonstrating that Lego-MT can learn the alignment for different branches." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "into a unified space. During training, we propose a triple-flow way to train Lego-MT. These three flows contain Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow. To evaluate the quality of the hidden representations, we conduct experiments by directly using a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder for inference. Since such combinations do not occur in the training phase, it can evaluate the quality of the unified hidden space. We randomly combine the language-specific encoder and the language-specific decoder of four high-resource languages (En, De, Zh, Ar) with 12 translation directions. Figure 4 shows the performance of directly combining language-specific encoder and decoder. We find that such unseen combinations can get better results in most translation directions (9 out of 12). These results prove that Lego-MT can effectively map all languages into a unified space." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11525" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAst→XHu→XDa→XLo→XEn→XDe→XAr→XAz→XCeb→XNe→XZh→XAVG.
Multilingual FT3.82.62.76.37.64.21.72.60.96.23.73.9
Lego-MT14.210.111.917.520.614.16.912.25.817.711.713.1
ModelX→AstX→HuX→DaX→LoX→EnX→DeX→ArX→AzX→CebX→NeX→ZhAVG.
Multilingual FT4.92.21.66.910.83.00.52.70.77.84.34.1
Lego-MT14.18.810.517.824.113.73.611.04.021.211.812.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.179, + 0.883, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Commencing with random initialization, \\(1/7\\) of the data is trained and the performance differential between Multilingual-FT and Lego-MT is evaluated. The findings indicate that the mean performance of Lego-MT across all language orientations surpasses that of Multilingual-FT and exhibits a more rapid convergence rate." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.244, + 0.468, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelX→EnEn→XAVG.
ChatGPT zero-shot27.923.925.9
ChatGPT eight-shot31.924.728.3
Lego-MT30.225.728.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.317, + 0.49, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Comparison of ChatGPT and Lego-MT: zero-shot and eight-shot results. While ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT in zero-shot performance, it outperforms Lego-MT in the \\(\\mathrm{X}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) direction with eight-shot. However, in the \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}\\) direction, ChatGPT falls behind Lego-MT even with eight-shot." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.433, + 0.49, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, it proves that the performance of high-resource languages still has room for improvement by using language-specific parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.483, + 0.49, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT achieves promising results in unseen directions. We also conduct experiments on unseen directions to evaluate Lego-MT's performance in these scenarios, as demonstrated in Table 4. Distinguishing unseen translation directions can involve two scenarios: 1) The training data set lacks a specific translation direction. In this case, we start with the low-resource Ceb language and identify translation directions not included in our constructed data set. 2) The training data set lacks a direct translation between two languages. For instance, our training corpus may contain translations from Ast to En and from En to Es, but not a direct translation from Ast to Es. To address this, we randomly select four languages (Ast, Da, Hu, Lo) and evaluate the average performance on the Flores-101 devtest with one-to-many and many-to-one settings. According to all experimental results, Lego-MT significantly surpasses the Multilingual FT baseline and is on par with the M2M-100-12B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT performance is independent of pretrained model initialization and converges faster than existing pre-training pipelines. To evaluate the necessity of pre-trained model initialization, we compare Lego-MT with the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline that uses a single encoder-decoder model for all languages. We con" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.248, + 0.885, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "duct experiments on a subset of our constructed corpus, which contains parallel data for 433 languages. We randomly initialize both models and train them on only \\(1/7\\) of the data, then measure their performance on Flores-101. As shown in Table 5, our experimental results demonstrate that our Lego-MT model is independent of the pre-trained model initialization and achieves faster convergence than the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline. Moreover, our Lego-MT model outperforms the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline on most of the machine translation tasks, showing its superior generalization and adaptation ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.458, + 0.886, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lego-MT surpasses ChatGPT in the \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}\\) direction and is on par with ChatGPT in the \\(\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) direction, in terms of performance. A comparative analysis between ChatGPT and LegoMT, as shown in Table 6, reveals that in zero-shot performance, ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT. However, in eight-shot performance, ChatGPT surpasses Lego-MT in the \\(\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) direction but falls short in the \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}\\) direction. The prompts utilized for ChatGPT are \"You are a helpful assistant that translates {SOURCELANG} to {TARGETLANG}.\" for the system and \"Translate the following {SOURCELANG} text to {TARGETLANG}: {SOURCE_TEXT}.\" for the user." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.699, + 0.642, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With the increasing scale of languages, using a single model to translate all directions brings new challenges in practice. This paper proposes an efficient training recipe, which results in a detachable multilingual translation model, Lego-MT. To validate the effectiveness of our algorithm, we develop a massive MNMT translation dataset, covering 433 languages. Results on Flores-101 show that Lego-MT-1.2B achieves large performance improvements over strong baselines under a fair comparison. It even outperforms the result of M2M12B with a gain of 4 BLEU on many-to-one." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11526" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.489, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00089." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.159, + 0.488, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.21, + 0.489, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ankur Bapna and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1538-1548, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.326, + 0.489, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marta R. Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. CoRR, abs/2207.04672." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.545, + 0.489, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raj Dabre, Chenhui Chu, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2020. A survey of multilingual neural machine translation. ACM Comput. Surv., 53(5)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.596, + 0.489, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Damai Dai, Li Dong, Shuming Ma, Bo Zheng, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Stablemoe: Stable routing strategy for mixture of experts. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 7085-7095. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.712, + 0.489, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Siddharth Dalmia, Dmytro Okhonko, Mike Lewis, Sergey Edunov, Shinji Watanabe, Florian Metze, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2022. Legonn: Building modular encoder-decoder models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.789, + 0.489, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, Wei He, Dianhai Yu, and Haifeng Wang. 2015. Multi-task learning for multiple language translation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics(ACL)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mixture-of-experts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5547-5569. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.122, + 0.883, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.211, + 0.883, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.26, + 0.883, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Orhan First, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Multi-way, multilingual neural machine translation with a shared attention mechanism. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.348, + 0.883, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, Peng-Jen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzman, and Angela Fan. 2022. The flores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingual machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:522-538." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.45, + 0.883, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiatao Gu, Hany Hassan, Jacob Devlin, and Victor O.K. Li. 2018. Universal neural machine translation for extremely low resource languages. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.538, + 0.883, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016a. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.627, + 0.883, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016b. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.715, + 0.883, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.765, + 0.883, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baijun Ji, Zhirui Zhang, Xiangyu Duan, Min Zhang, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2020. Cross-lingual pre-training based transfer for zero-shot neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 115–122." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.852, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Melvin Johnson, Mike Schuster, Quoc V Le, Maxim Krikun, Yonghui Wu, Zhifeng Chen, Nikhil Thorat, Fernanda Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Greg Corrado, et al. 2017. Google's multilingual neural machine translation system: Enabling zero-shot translation." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11527" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:339-351." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.122, + 0.49, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Fully character-level neural machine translation without explicit segmentation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:365-378." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020. Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.286, + 0.489, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xian Li and Hongyu Gong. 2021. Robust optimization for multilingual translation with imbalanced data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.349, + 0.489, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zehui Lin, Xiao Pan, Mingxuan Wang, Xipeng Qiu, Jiangtao Feng, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2020. Pretraining multilingual neural machine translation by leveraging alignment information. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.437, + 0.489, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zehui Lin, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning language specific sub-network for multilingual machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.512, + 0.489, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.601, + 0.489, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sungwon Lyu, Bokyung Son, Kichang Yang, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Revisiting Modularized Multilingual NMT to Meet Industrial Demands. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5905-5918, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.702, + 0.489, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.764, + 0.489, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiao Pan, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Contrastive learning for many-to-many multilingual neural machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Devendra Sachan and Graham Neubig. 2018. Parameter sharing methods for multilingual self-attentional translation models. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 261–271, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.162, + 0.883, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenqiao Song, Hao Zhou, Lihua Qian, Jingjing Xu, Shanbo Cheng, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. switch-glat: Multilingual parallel machine translation via code-switch decoder. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.238, + 0.883, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Multilingual translation via grafting pre-trained language models. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) - Findings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.3, + 0.883, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.363, + 0.883, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Biao Zhang, Philip Williams, Ivan Titov, and Rico Sennrich. 2020. Improving massively multilingual neural machine translation and zero-shot translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11867." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.426, + 0.883, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaoming Zhu, Jiangtao Feng, Chengqi Zhao, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Counter-interference adapter for multilingual machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 2812-2823." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.527, + 0.883, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Barret Zoph and Kevin Knight. 2016. Multi-source neural translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.00710." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11528" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.212, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.49, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite promising results, we also notice several limitations in this paper. First, we find that low-resource translation is not boosted by language-specific decoders and language-specific encoders, which require more exploration of the trade-off between parameter sharing and parameter tension. Second, the evaluation of few-shot languages still remains a large problem. Although the final training dataset covers 433 languages, we only evaluate the translation performance on the available evaluation set that only covers 86 languages since baselines do not support so many languages. More standard benchmarks are required for evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.331, + 0.332, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Dataset construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.357, + 0.489, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we will describe the construction details of the Many-to-Many dataset. As shown in Table 5, the pipeline mainly consists of six steps:" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.417, + 0.388, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.641, + 0.487, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The construction pipeline for Many-to-Many dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 1: Data Collection The raw data is collected from OPUS7, which is an open corpus that collects numerous parallel sentences from the web and overs a large number of domains from legislative to religious texts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.784, + 0.49, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 2: Data Unification Since the OPUS includes datasets from different sources, it leads to the following two significant issues." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.833, + 0.49, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) Different Language Code: Some language in OPUS has several corresponding language codes. One of the reasons is that different corpora use different standards for language code, including" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3 or self-defined language codes in OPUS. Another reason is that some corpora append region ids at the end of language codes to distinguish the same language used in different regions. To unify language codes, we replace ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 language codes with ISO 639-1 language codes if the codes from ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 have the same language name in the code set published by SIL International (formerly known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics)\\(^{8}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.264, + 0.884, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) Inconsistent Operation: Some datasets pre-tokensize their sentences in OPUS, especially for Chinese and Japanese." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.314, + 0.885, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, we remove the region id if the language code ends with a region id. All replaced language codes are shown in Table 7. For the language codes out of ISO 639 series, we list them and the corpus they come from in Table 9. Furthermore, we report all used language codes and the full names of their corresponding languages in our dataset in Table 10. Then we detokenize all sentences by removing white space and unifying our texts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.884, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 3: Data Merging After data unification, the parallel data is merged with the same language code pair from a different corpus." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.553, + 0.884, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 4: Data Cleaning The OPUS corpus collected from the web contains some poor-quality data. The main problems are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.604, + 0.883, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) Duplication: we use the dedduplication script from fairseq to remove all duplicated sentence pairs for each language pair." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.654, + 0.884, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) Missing Translation: We remove the sentence without corresponding translation or repeating itself as translation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.704, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3) Length Mismatching: After segmentation the sentences with white space for most languages or individual characters for Chinese and Japanese, we apply a filtering script from Moses decoder10 to remove the sentences that the length is more than 250 words or three times difference in length between source and target sentences." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.604, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.832, + 0.867, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{8}\\)https://iso639-3.sil.org/sites/ iso639-3/files/downloads/iso-639-3.tab \\({}^{9}\\)https://github.com/facebookresearch/ fairseq/edit/main/examples/ backtranslation/deduplicatelines.py \\({}^{10}\\)https://github.com/moses-smt/ mosesdecoder" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.337, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7https://opus.nlpl.eu/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11529" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 5: Train-Dev-Test Split Different traindev-test split schemes are developed based on the data quantity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.134, + 0.488, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) A parallel data with more than 6,000 sentence pairs. We randomly sample separately about 2,000 sentence pairs as validation and test set, respectively. And the rest is train set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.198, + 0.488, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) A parallel data with fewer than 6,000 sentence pairs. We take \\(80\\%\\), \\(10\\%\\), \\(10\\%\\) of all samples as train, validation, and test." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.134, + 0.488, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.246, + 0.489, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To avoid any overlap between our training data and used benchmark test data, we filter all sentences that exist in the common benchmarks (WMT, Flores-101) from our train and validation set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.32, + 0.489, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 6: Data Preprocessing The data preprocessing consists of two main steps:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.352, + 0.488, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) Sampling: Because the full dataset is huge, we sample some data for our training. The final dataset contains 1,307,143,514 sentence pairs, 433 languages, and 1,922 training pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.416, + 0.488, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) Preprocessing: The data is preprocess using the SentencePiece tokenizer provided by Fan et al. (2021) with a shared vocabulary of size 128,112." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.352, + 0.488, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.476, + 0.486, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OriginalReplacedOriginalReplacedOriginalReplaced
akakaeses_HNptpt_BR
amamheses_ECptpt_br
araraeses_COptpt_PT
arar_SYfafa_IRrnrun
arar_TNfafa_AFrwkin
ayaymfffulsnsna
azaz_IRfrfr_FRsosom
bgbg_BGfrfr_CAsrsrp
bmbamfrfr_BEsrsr_ME
bnbn_INfrfr_castsot
cacathahauswswa
dada_DKhihi_INtata_LK
dede_CHigibotgtg_TJ
dede_ATitit_ITtitir
dede_DEjpjaptltl_PH
eses_CLkrkautrtr_TR
eses_SVkvkpvurur_PK
eses_NIlnlinvivi_VN
eses_UYmgmlgwowol
eses_PEmsms_MYxhxho
eses_VEnbnb_NOyoyor
eses_ARndsnds_nlzeze_zh
eses_MXnlnl_NLzeze_en
eses_PAnlnl_BEzhzh_cn
eses_CRnnnn_NOzhzh_CN
eses_PRnono_nbzthradzh_HK
eses_ESnynyazthradzh_TW
eses_GTomormzthradzh_tw
eses_DOpapanzuzul
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.779, + 0.489, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Code Replacement List. We use the codes in the column \"Original\" to replace the codes in the column \"replaced\" if these replaced codes exist in OPUS." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11530" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.106, + 0.867, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CodeEnDeArZhNeAzCeb
#Sentence Pairs811,238,712360,369,144152,457,83092,763,4456,654,2704,208,0251,683,531
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.157, + 0.781, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: The number of sentence pairs for each core language in Lego-MT training," + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.228, + 0.868, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDataset
crpbible-uedincbMultiCCAlignedszMultiCCAlignedsgnQEDcyclTatoeba
tcEUbookshopcxMultiCCAlignedzzMultiCCAlignediroQEDnahTatoeba
zhsGlobalVoicesnsMultiCCAlignedzeOpenSubtitlesmoQED,Ubuntu
zhtGlobalVoicesqdMultiCCAlignedbhQEDberQED,Ubuntu
tmpGNOMEqaMultiCCAlignedbntQEDtokiTatoeba
grGNOMEtzMultiCCAlignedryQEDkzjTatoeba
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.331, + 0.846, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Unknown Language Codes, which are out of ISO 639 series. We can't confirm their full names." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.402, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCode
AbkhazianabCorsicancoIbaniblaLower SorbiandsbOssetianosSwahili (macrolanguage)sw
AchineseaceCreecrIcelandicisLukpadopOttoman Turkish (1500-1928)otaSwtiss
Achuar-ShiwiaracuCreekmusIdoioLuo (Kenya and Tanzania)luoPaite ChinpckSwedishsv
AdygheadyCrimean TatarchrIgboigLushootseedlutPalaunpauSwiss Germangsw
AfaraaCroatianhrIlokiloLuxembourgishlbPalipiSyriacsyr
AfrihiliafhCusco QuechuaquzIndonesianidLuyialuyPampangapamTachawitshy
AfrikaansafCzechcsIngrianizhMacedonianmkPangasinanpagTachelihshi
AguarunaagrDanishdaInghushinhMacedo-RomanianrupPanjabipaTagal Murutmvv
Ainu (Japan)ainDariprsInterlinguaiaMaduresemadPapiamentopapTagalogtl
AkanakDinkadinInterlingueieMaithilimaiPapuan MalaypmyTahaggart Tamahaqthv
AkawaioakeDrentsdrtInuktitutiuMalagasymgPedinsoTahitianty
AkanlonaklDungandngInupiaqikMalay (individual language)zlmPennsylvania GermanpdcTajiktg
AlbaniansqDutchnlIranian PersianpesMalay (macrolanguage)msPersianfaTalusssantzl
Algerian ArabicarqDutton World SpeedwordsdwsIrishgaMalayalammlPhoenicianphnTalyshtly
American Sign LanguageaseDzongkhadzItalianitMaltesemtPicardpedTamashektmh
AmharicamEastern Canadian InuktitutikeJakunjakMammamPiemontesepmsTamilta
Ancient Greek (to 1453)grcEastern MarimhrJamaican Creole EnglishjamMambaemgnPipilpplTarifitrif
Ancient HebrewhboEastern Maroon CreoledjkJapanesejaMandarin ChinesecmnPlateau MalagasypltTase Naganst
ArabicarEfikefiJavanesejvManxgvPolishplTatartt
ArgonesseanEgyptian ArabicartzJewish Babylonian AramaictmrMaorimiPortugueseptTelugute
ArmenianhyEmilianeglKabylekabMarathimrPotawatomipotTena Lowland Quichuaqw
ArpitanfrpEnglishenKadazan DusundtpMarshallesemhPrussianprgTetelingino Nahuatlnhg
AsháninkacniErzyamyvKalaallusitklMesopotamian ArabicacmPushtopsTetumtet
AssameseasEsperantoeoKalmykxalMiahuatlán ZapoteczamQuechuaquThaith
AsturianastEstonianetKamba (Kenya)kamMiddle English (1100-1500)emmQuenyaqyaTibetanbo
AvaricavEvenkievnKamadaknMiddle French (ca. 1400-1600)frmQuitopepec ChinantechchqTigrinyati
AvestanaeEweeeKanurikrMikasukimikRapanuirapTohono O'odhamood
AwadiyaawaExtremaduranextKaçchikelcakMi'kmaqmicRomanianroTok Pisintpi
AymaraayFaroeosefoKaraliankrlMin Dong ChinesecdoRomanshrnTonga (Tonga Islands)to
AzerbaijanazFiji HindihifKashmiriksMin Nan ChinesenanRomanyromTraditional Chinesezhtrad
BaluchibalFijianfjKashubiancsbMinangkabauminRundirnTsongats
BambarabmFilipinofilKazakhkkMingrelianxmfRussianruTswanatn
BanjarbjnFinnishfiKekchikekMirandesemwIRusynrueTupitpw
Barasana-EduriabsnFrenchfrKhakasikjhMiskitomiqSamoansmTurkishtr
BashkirbaFriulianfurKhasikhaModern Greek (1453-)elSamogtiansgsTurkmentk
BasqueeuFulahffKhemerkmMohawkmohSangosgTuvalutvl
BavarianbarGalelagbiK'iche'qucMongolianmnSanskritsaTwitw
BaybayanonbvyGalicianglKikuyukikMorisienymfeSantalisatUab Metoaoz
BelarusianbeGan ChineseganKinyarwandarwMoroccan ArabicarySardinianscUdmurtudm
Bemba (Zambia)bemGandalgKirghizkyMossimosSatterffriesischstqUighurug
BengalibnGarhwaligbmKlingonthhNaurunaScotsscoUkrainianuk
BerombornGeorgiankaKoaatikuNavajonvScottish GaelicgdUmappk
BhojpuribhoGermandeKölschkshNeapolitannapSediqtrvUmbunduumb
BislamabiGheg AlbanianalnKomiikvNepali (individual language)npiSerbiansrUpper Sorbianhsb
Bodo (India)brxGilbertesegilKomii-PermyakkoiNepali (macrolanguage)neSerbo-CroatianshUrduur
BosnianbsGoan KonkanigomKongokgNigerian FulfuldefuvShanshnUspanteccousp
BretonbrGothicgotKoreankoNiueanniuShonasnUzbekuz
BritheningbztGroningsgosKotavaavkNogainogShuarjvVendave
BuginesebugGuadeloupean Creole FrenchgcfKriangngtNorth Levantine ArabicapcSchuswapshsVenetianvec
BulgarianbgGuaranignKuanyamakjNorth Molucan MalaymaxSicilianscnVietnamesevi
BuraitibuaGuerrero AmuzgoamuKurdishkuNorthern FrisianfrrSilesianszlVlaamsvls
BurmesemyGuerrero NahuatlnguKven FinnishfkvNorthern KurdishkmrSindarinsjnVolapukvo
CabecarcjpGujaratguLaidanldnNorthern SamiseSindisdWalloonwa
CamsékbhGulf ArabicafbLadinlldNorthwestern OjibwaobjSinhalasiWalserwae
CatalancaHaidahaiLadinoladNorwegiannoSlovakskWaray (Philippines)war
CebuanocebHaitianhtLakotalktNorwegian BokmålnbSlovenianslWelshcy
Central Huasteca NahuatlnchHakka ChincnhLaoloNorwegian NynorsknnSomalisoWestern Frisanfy
Central KurdishckbHakka ChinesehakLatgalianltgNovialnovSouth AzerbaijaniazbWestern Panjabipnb
Central SamasmlHausahaLatinlaNuernusSouth NdebelenrWolaytawal
ChamorrochHawaiianhawLatvianlvNyanjanySouthern KurdishsdhWolofwo
ChavacanocbkHebrewheLigurianlijOccitan (post 1500)ocSouthern SamismaWu Chinesewuu
ChechenceHilgaynonhilLimburganliOld English (ca. 450-1100)angSouthern SothostXhosaxh
CherokeechrHindihiLingalalnOld French (842-ca. 1400)froSouthwestern DinkadikYakutsah
ChhattisgarhihneHiri MotuhoLingua Franca NovalfnOld FrisanofsSpanishesYaquiyqa
ChinesezhHmong DawmwwLiterary ChineselzhOld NorsenonStandard MalayzsmYiddishyi
ChoctawchoHohocLithuanianltOld RussianovrStandard Moroccan TamazightzghYorubayo
Church SlaviccuHuastechusLivlivOld SpanishospSumeriansuxZarmadje
ChuvashcvHungarianhuLojbanjboOriya (macrolanguage)orSundanesesuZazaza
CopticcopHunsrikhrxLomburdlmoOrizaba NahuatlnlvSwaibanswgZuluzu
CornishkwHupahupLow GermanndsOromoomSwahili (individual language)swh
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.862, + 0.883, + 0.891 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: List of Languages. Our dataset mainly use ISO 639 series as language code. For traditional Chinese, we define “zhtrad” as code." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11531" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.435, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.108, + 0.323, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A For every submission:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section \"Limitation\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.171, + 0.553, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.213, + 0.696, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? see the abstract and introduction in the paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.256, + 0.669, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.127, + 0.696, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.3, + 0.489, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.322, + 0.215, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.347, + 0.53, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.779, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.434, + 0.881, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.525, + 0.881, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.599, + 0.881, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.658, + 0.881, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.347, + 0.881, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.494, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.789, + 0.147, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.812, + 0.881, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? see section 4.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.878, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11532" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? see section 4.3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.143, + 0.88, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? see section 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.218, + 0.88, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? see section 4.3" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.084, + 0.88, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.294, + 0.878, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.315, + 0.215, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.4, + 0.88, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.475, + 0.88, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.55, + 0.873, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.593, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.341, + 0.88, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11533" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_origin.pdf b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e9cfb08bd5c3eb1becc7c8c110f1e65ff8d2465 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/51c725c6-9464-4e5f-b279-06b59feba491_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4c1304f4a742c398478d77a0090f8a167f49a38981c127d83f8d64fde2ebc981 +size 1595413 diff --git a/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/full.md b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b88d5e90015ac4cd68f0479f7e5b25553de4cf7d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ +# Lego-MT: Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation + +Fei Yuan $^{1}$ , Yinquan Lu $^{1}$ , Wenhao Zhu $^{2}$ , Lingpeng Kong $^{3}$ , Lei Li $^{4}$ , Yu Qiao $^{1}$ , Jingjing Xu $^{1}$ $^{1}$ Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory + +$^{2}$ National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China + +3 The University of Hong Kong, 4 University of California, Santa Barbara + +{yuanfei, luyinquan, qiaoyu}@pjlab.org.cn, zhuwh@smail.nju.edu.cn + +lpk@cs.hku.hk,leili@cs.ucsb.edu,jingjingxupku.02@gmail.com + +# Abstract + +Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) aims to build a unified model for many language directions. Existing monolithic models for MNMT encounter two challenges: parameter interference among languages and inefficient inference for large models. In this paper, we revisit the classic multi-way structures and develop a detachable model by assigning each language (or group of languages) to an individual branch that supports plug-and-play training and inference. To address the needs of learning representations for all languages in a unified space, we propose a novel efficient training recipe, upon which we build an effective detachable model, Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we collect data from OPUS and build a translation benchmark covering 433 languages and 1.3B parallel data. Experiments show that Lego-MT with 1.2B parameters brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. It even outperforms M2M-100 with 12B parameters. The proposed training recipe brings a $28.2 \times$ speedup over the conventional multi-way training method. $^{1}$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) translates languages by mapping a source sentence to a unified representation space and decoding a target sentence from this space (Johnson et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Neubig and Hu, 2018; Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Traditional MNMT models use a shared network to align representations in different languages. Recently, scaling up the size of MNMT models brings significant quantitative improvements and new qualitative capabilities (M2M-100, Fan et al. 2021; NLLB-200, Costa-jussa et al. 2022; inter alia). Beyond MNMT, recent large-scale language models (e.g., ChatGPT) also show promising results on zero-shot (or + +![](images/2d3d7dd25d30308862d870c823cd56ba633b3bc6cf7f10838027164edac1535c.jpg) +Figure 1: Multi-way architecture. (1) Monolithic Model is the fully-shared model for all translation directions; (2) Lego-MT is a multi-way structure that includes both multilingual (denoted as M) and language-specific encoders and decoders for English (denoted as E), Chinese (denoted as C) and Nepali (denotes as N). The architecture is detachable at inference time where only a specific encoder and decoder are needed. U (Unified space) represents hidden representations generated by encoders. + +few-shot) translation, especially for language-to-English translation. Despite great potential, there is still a large gap between LLMs and existing MNMT models on massive translation directions. + +Simply using a shared model for massive MNMT brings new effectiveness and efficiency issues. First, memorizing multilingual knowledge within finite parameters causes parameter interference (Ha et al., 2016a), especially between high-resource and low-resource languages (Li and Gong, 2021), which leads to significant performance degradation. Second, the centralization feature requires all parameters to be included in the computation graph during the inference stage, resulting in heavy computational overhead (Song et al., 2021). Common fixes of these issues include adapter-based approaches (Zhu et al., 2021), which handle parameter interference via fine-tuning new parameters to fit bilingual translation, and mixture-of-expert (MoE), which supports dynamic activation. These methods either fail to adapt to massive translation directions or require all parameters to be loaded into memory, thus remaining unsatisfactory consid- + +ering the efficiency of training and inference. + +To find out the best recipe for massive multilingual translation, we revisit the classic multi-way (or multi-branch) architecture (Dong et al., 2015; Firat et al., 2016), whose philosophy is to allocate an individual encoder and decoder for each language (or group of languages), as shown in Figure 1. The immediate benefit of this structure is: 1) The utilization of individual modules for specific languages mitigates parameter interference; 2) Each branch can be independently loaded during inference, significantly reducing computational costs and decreasing inference latency. + +Despite appealing, there remain two big challenges when training multi-way structures: representation alignment between different languages due to the lack of shared parameters; and low GPU efficiency during training because unused parameters occupy GPU memory but do not have any computations. Furthermore, the feature of random language mixture in a batch makes it infeasible to use an online-loading method (i.e., loading during usage) to accelerate training since it will cause impractical IO communication costs during batch switching (between CPU and GPU). + +To address these challenges, we propose a novel training recipe, which results in our new detachable model, Lego-MT. We classify the training data into different language-centric groups such that we only need to load specific branches into GPU memory, eliminating the need to load different modules constantly. The language-centric group is trained in sequential order. Second, during each language-centric training, we introduce a multilingual branch and propose a new triple-flow method to help a model learn to map to and translate from a unified space. Specifically, a unified space is a type of representation space rather than a module. It creates a common representation of language that can be used across multiple language tasks. + +To evaluate our training recipe for massive MNMT, we construct a many-to-many translation dataset $^2$ covering 7 language-centric groups, 433 languages, based on the open-source website OPUS $^3$ (Tiedemann, 2012). + +Lego-MT-1.2B yields average gains of 3.2 spBLEU, and even outperforms M2M-100-12B which has $10 \times$ inference parameters. Furthermore, the proposed training recipe brings a $28.2 \times$ + +speedup compared with the conventional multiway training method. We also conduct comprehensive experiments on branch combinations, thanks to the detachable nature of the model. We find that low-resource languages prefer multilingual branches and high-resource languages prefer language-specific branches. In addition, we also observe that the unseen combination of a high-resource language encoder and a high-resource language decoder can achieve better performance, showing that Lego-MT can align different branches into a unified space effectively. The main contributions can be summarized as follows: + +- We build an effective detachable model LegoMT for multilingual machine translation. +- Experiments demonstrate that Lego-MT brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. This training recipe results in a $28.2 \times$ training speedup compared with the naive multi-branch architecture. +- We construct a massive multilingual translation dataset covering 433 languages, which greatly extends the scale of languages. + +# 2 Related Work + +In this part, we review recent related multilingual machine translation models. We classify them into three categories: fully / group-shared (Dabre et al., 2020), and Mixture-of-expert (MoE). + +The fully-shared model is the most prevalent model in Multilingual Neural Machine Translation (MNMT). This model employs a single architecture to translate in all directions (Ha et al., 2016b; Johnson et al., 2017; Bapna et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021) and has demonstrated efficacy in aiding low-resource directions. However, fully-shared models are often subject to capacity bottlenecks and trade-offs between translation quality and the number of languages (Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020; Ha et al., 2016a). Group-shared models incorporate individual parameters for each group and represent a popular solution for sharing language-specific encoders or decoders (Lee et al., 2017; Zoph and Knight, 2016). Lee et al. (2017); Sachan and Neubig (2018); Ji et al. (2020); Lyu et al. (2020); Sachan and Neubig (2018) proposed an MNMT model only for shared language-specific modules. LaSS (Lin et al., 2021) learns language-specific sub-networks for each language direction for multilingual translation. Adpater methods (Bapna and Firat, 2019; Zhu et al., 2021) + +![](images/c5d5f1254d128890322a7c18465c2aa9e61a02340b1b4e678d8c4f80c09f71f8.jpg) +Figure 2: The overview of Lego-MT and training recipe. During training, we introduce an efficient training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. The language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. During each training phase, only language-specific parameters are loaded into GPU memory. The training maintains three flows: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (Multilingual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. U means the unified space, hidden representations generated by encoders. + +add additional side networks to each language direction in addition to the main multilingual Transformer encoder-decoder. While these studies can alleviate the capacity bottleneck to some extent, challenges remain when handling larger-scale languages. + +Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) has recently emerged as a prominent research direction (Jacobs et al., 1991; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussa et al., 2022), which are sparsely activated, with each inference only activating a subset of parameters. Researchers have applied MoE to massively multilingual translation and introduced various regularization strategies to enhance performance (Dai et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). Despite promising results, MoE's objective differs from ours, as it still requires the entire structure to be stored in GPU memory during inference. + +The encoder-decoder structure has demonstrated considerable flexibility through the utilization of the Lego-NN (Dalmia et al., 2022). The Lego-NN can be applied to various tasks with decoder modules being detachable, in contrast, the Lego-MT model design allows for the performance of massively MNMT with all modules being detachable. + +# 3 Lego-MT + +# 3.1 Overview + +This paper aims to build a detachable multi-branch model with a language (or group)-specific encoder and a language (or group)-specific decoder. As shown in Figure 2, the detachable structure provides an effective mechanism to only load a part of modules during training and inference. + +During training, we introduce a new training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. During each training phase, only language-centric data and related branches are loaded. All language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. We empirically found that the orders contribute little to the final performance and we fix the training order for simplification in the next parts. + +During each language-centric training phase, we introduce a multi-lingual branch to help language-specific branches learn to encode to a unified space and decode from a unified space. Unified Space is a concept that aims to map all languages into a unified representation space without any parameters. This concept is used in natural language processing and machine learning to create a common representation of language (Lyu et al., 2020; Fan et al., 2021) that can be used across different languages. + +The training maintains triple-flow: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (multilin + +Algorithm 1: Triple-flow training. +Input: Epoch number $L$ . Training data for Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow: $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{multi}} = \{\mathcal{D}_{s_1\rightarrow t_1},\mathcal{D}_{s_i\rightarrow t_j},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{s_N\rightarrow t_N}\}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\rightarrow \cdot} = \{\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\rightarrow t_1},\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\rightarrow t_j},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\rightarrow t_N}\}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\cdot \rightarrow \lg} = \{\mathcal{D}_{s_1\rightarrow \lg},\mathcal{D}_{s_i\rightarrow \lg},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{s_N\rightarrow \lg}\}$ , respectively. The parameters used for Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow are initialized as $\theta_{m} = \theta_{0}$ and $\theta_{e} = \theta_{0}$ . Note, the parameters used for Dec-Flow are initialized as $\theta_d = \theta_m$ after training of Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. +for epoch $l = 1$ to $L$ do + Shuffle $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\rightarrow}$ . to obtain a new training sequence. +for each batch $\mathcal{D}_e\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\rightarrow}$ . do + Evaluate the objective by Equation 2 on $\mathcal{D}_e$ : $l_e = \sum_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\sim \mathcal{D}_b} - \log P_{\theta_e}(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})$ + Get a minibatch of multilingual data $\mathcal{D}_m\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{multi}}$ + Evaluate the objective by Equation 1 on $\mathcal{D}_m$ : $l_m = \sum_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\sim \mathcal{D}_m} - \log P_{\theta_m}(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})$ + Update $\theta_{m}$ and $\theta_{e}$ by: $\theta_{m}\gets \theta_{m} - \eta \nabla_{\theta_{m}}(l_{m} + l_{e})$ and $\theta_{e}\gets \theta_{e} - \eta \nabla_{\theta_{e}}l_{e}$ +end +end +for epoch $l = 1$ to $L$ do + Shuffle $\mathcal{D}_{\cdot \rightarrow \lg}$ to obtain a new training sequence. +for each batch $\mathcal{D}_d\in \mathcal{D}_{\cdot \rightarrow \lg}$ do + Calculate $\mathcal{D}_d$ by Equation 3: $l_d = \sum_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\sim \mathcal{D}_d} - \log P_{\theta_d}(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})$ + Update $\theta_d$ : $\theta_d\gets \theta_d - \eta \nabla_{\theta_d}l_d$ +end + +gual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. Surprisingly, we find that Dec-flow cannot be trained together with Mix/Enc-flow, resulting in catastrophic forgetting in the multilingual encoder (detailed discussion in Section 5). Therefore, the basic training processes can be briefly divided into two stages: the Mix/Enc-Flow phase and the Dec-Flow phase. + +During inference, there are three alternative flows in Lego-MT for language-centric translation to be translated ("Inference Stage" in Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, users can decide to choose which path for inference. + +# 3.2 Triple-Flow Training + +Given a multilingual dataset with $N$ languages, $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{multi}} = \{\mathcal{D}_{s_1\rightarrow t_1},\mathcal{D}_{s_i\rightarrow t_j},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{s_N\rightarrow t_N}\}$ , where each $\mathcal{D}_{s_i\rightarrow t_j}$ contains a parallel data from the source language $S_{i}$ to the target language $T_{j}$ , $s_i$ refers to the $i$ -th ( $i\in N$ ) language being translated from, $t_j$ represents the $j$ -th ( $j\in N$ ) language being translated into, respectively. Specifically, one-to-many multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be expressed as $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\to \cdot} = \{\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\to t_1},\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\to t_j},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{lg}\to t_N}\}$ . Similarly, the many-to-one multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be denoted as $\mathcal{D}_{\cdot \to \lg} = \{\mathcal{D}_{s_1\to \lg},\mathcal{D}_{s_i\to \lg},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{s_N\to \lg}\}$ . All input sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language + +tag) to indicate the source language and target languages. During each training phase, we have tripleflows playing for different rules, Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow. + +# 3.2.1 Mix-Flow + +Mix-Flow is built upon a multilingual encoder branch and a multilingual decoder branch. It is trained on multilingual to multilingual data. This flow learns a mapping function $f$ from a sentence in any language to another language. All language data is mixed together. The input source sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language tag) to indicate the source languages. Following traditional methods, we also add a target language tag in the decoder part. The training loss for a Mix-Flow is: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {m} = - \sum_ {\mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} \sim \mathcal {D} _ {\mathrm {m u l t i}}} \log P _ {\theta_ {m}} (\mathbf {y} | \mathbf {x}) \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}$ is a pair sampled from multilingual training data. It is used to avoid over-fitting language-specific data in Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow. + +# 3.2.2 Enc-Flow + +Enc-Flow includes a language-specific encoder and a multilingual decoder. It is trained with one-to-many multilingual data. The structure of such a design is natural for language-specific encoder training: the encoder input data comes from the same source language lg, and the decoder is multi-lingual data. The language tag is also added to the encoder + +and decoder parts. The training loss for language-specific Enc-Flow is: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {e} = - \sum_ {\mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} \sim \mathcal {D} _ {\lg \rightarrow}} \log P _ {\theta_ {e}} (\mathbf {y} | \mathbf {x}) \tag {2} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}$ is a pair sampled from one-to-many training data. + +# 3.2.3 Dec-Flow + +Dec-Flow includes a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder. It is trained with many-to-one translation. We separate the training of Dec-Flow from the training of Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow. The parameters used for training Dec-Flow are initialized with the latest model trained by Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. The language tag is also added to the encoder and decoder parts. Given a many-to-one dataset $\mathcal{D}_{\rightarrow \lg}$ , the training loss is: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {d} = - \sum_ {\mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} \sim \mathcal {D} _ {\cdot \rightarrow \lg}} \log P _ {\theta_ {d}} (\mathbf {y} | \mathbf {x}) \tag {3} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}$ is a pair sampled from many-to-one training data. + +# 3.3 Training Algorithm + +Algorithm 1 shows the whole training procedure. We will go into the effects of the two-stage design in Section 5. In the first stage, we initialize each module of the Lego-MT model with a pre-trained MT model $\theta_0$ . After initialization, we shuffle a one-to-many dataset to obtain a new training sequence for Enc-Flow training. In the second stage, we fix the encoder parameter of M-Flow $\theta_m$ and learn the D-Flow decoder $\theta_d$ . The iteration keeps running for $L$ epochs. During inference, users can decide to load which flow for inference. We also evaluate the gap between these inference flows in experiments. + +# 4 Experiments + +While Lego-MT is generic, we focus the experiments on M2M-100-1.2B as backbone models since M2M-100 is a leading MT model. + +# 4.1 Dataset + +Training Data We create a Many-to-Many dataset from OPUS4. We build a dataset covering 7 language-specific data and 433 languages. The 7 core languages are En, Zh, De, Ar, Ne, Az, Ceb. + +The specifics of the construction process are delineated in Appendix A. All training pairs have been deduplicated with Flores-101. + +Evaluation Data We use Flores-101 (Fan et al., 2021) as the evaluation set, which provides human-written translation pairs covering 101 languages. Since M2M-100 baselines only cover 86 languages, we only compare Lego-MT with baselines on 86 languages5. We evaluate $7 \times 85$ translation directions in total. + +# 4.2 Baselines + +We conduct experiments by using a pre-trained multilingual machine translation model: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021) as initialization. We build 7 language-specific encoders and 7 language-specific decoders to model 7 core languages. We compare Lego-MT with the following baselines. + +Flores-175MB / 615MB Flores-101 (Goyal et al., 2022) furnishes two baseline models, with parameter sizes of 175MB and 615MB respectively, constructed on M2M-100. + +M2M-100-418M It is the smallest model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is a base-version Transformer model with 12 encoders and 12 decoders with 4,096 hidden state units. + +M2M-100-1.2B It is a Transformer model released by Fan et al. (2021) with 24 encoders and 24 decoders with 8,192 hidden state units. + +M2M-100-12B It is the largest single M2M-100 model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is obtained by adding language-specific layers to M2M-100-1.2B model. + +M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric Fine-Tuning To build a fair comparison, we also use the constructed dataset to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. We follow the standard fine-tuning paradigm, which uses a Transformer initialized with M2M-100-1.2B. In this baseline, we only use LG-centric data to train models. We simply merge all translation pairs related to language LG together to get the mixed training data. Like our model does, we also add language code in the encoder and decoder parts. + +M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual Fine-Tuning In order to establish an equitable comparison, the constructed dataset was utilized to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. All translation data was amalgamated + +
ModelParam.X → EnX → ZhX → DeX → ArX → NeX → AzX → CebAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.115.77.211.24.60.63.03.16.5
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.321.210.314.211.51.32.44.99.4
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.521.611.016.18.81.04.75.39.8
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.026.312.919.38.11.44.66.811.3
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.028.013.321.315.12.96.48.813.7
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.027.913.019.517.25.54.20.512.5
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.027.413.920.915.212.19.410.315.6
8: Lego-MT× 1.030.716.423.818.215.011.915.118.7
+ +
ModelParam.En → XZh → XDe → XAr → XNe → XAz → XCeb → XAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.112.77.811.66.92.22.85.47.1
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.317.310.114.111.54.04.26.19.6
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.518.011.115.611.25.24.37.910.5
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.021.513.117.712.67.16.19.512.5
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.024.714.920.316.49.76.212.515.0
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.021.310.915.814.93.93.01.510.2
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.021.813.518.414.713.411.112.415.0
8: Lego-MT× 1.025.016.321.418.417.013.516.818.3
+ +Table 1: Translation results on Flores-101. The top group shows the results of many-to-one translation and the bottom part shows the results of one-to-many settings. We display the spBLEU on the devtest of Flores-101. Each cell represents the average performance of translating from the rest languages. “Param.” represents the number of required parameters during inference. Baseline 7 has the exact same training data with Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we use Mix-Flow in Lego-MT for all translation pairs. Lego-MT outperforms M2M-100-1.2B w. multilingual fine-tuning by a large margin, with an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU (3.1 on many-to-one translation and 3.3 on one-to-many translation). + +for the purpose of fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B in this baseline. Correspondingly, language codes were incorporated in both the encoder and decoder components, as is done in our model. + +# 4.3 Settings and Metric + +Training Details The training code is bulit on the code repository fairseq6. Each flow is initialized with a pre-trained M2M-100-1.2B model. We train all models using Adam optimizer with $\beta_{1} = 0.9$ , $\beta_{2} = 0.999$ , the learning rate is set to 1e-4, and the max token number is set as 8,000. The training of all centric languages is conducted in random order: En, De, Ne, Az, Ceb, Ar, Zh. We split the whole dataset into 70 shards. And the whole training process takes around 15 days on 32 A100 GPUs. + +Metric We use the same evaluation metric (spBLEU) in the Flores-101 dataset. Before computing BLEU, we de-tokenized all data and then apply sentence piece tokenization for each language. It facilitates a more accurate assessment of model quality on the long-tail of low-resource languages. + +# 4.4 Results + +Lego-MT is an efficient translation model, outperforming M2M-100-12B with only $10\%$ inference parameters Table 1 show experiment results + +on the Flores-101 devtest set. As we can see, LegoMT is an efficient translation model that achieves large performance improvements over M2M-100-1.2B, with 7.4 spBLEU improvements on many-to-one translation and 5.8 spBLEU improvements on one-to-many translation. It even outperforms M2M-100-12B especially on one many-to-one settings, with a gain of 5.0 spBLEU. As a comparison, with the same training data, a shared model M2M-100-1.2B only obtains slight performance improvements, 4.3 spBLEU on many-to-one translation, and 2.5 spBLEU on one-to-many translation. These results demonstrate Lego-MT provides an effective solution by using fewer inference parameters to achieve higher results. + +Compared with high-resource translation, low-resource translation benefits more from multiway architectures. We observe that the improvements achieved by Lego-MT are not equally contributed by different languages. As we can see from Table 1, X→Ne, X→Az, and X→Ceb obtain more obvious improvements than X→En, X→Zh, and X→De. On X→Ne translation, Lego-MT even gets 13.6 improvements over M2M-100-1.2B. These results are consistent with previous studies about parameter interference in massive multilingual machine translation that low-resource translation usually suffers. With less parameter interference, Lego + +MT gets higher low-resource translation results. + +Multilingual branches play a significant role in avoiding over-fitting. As we can see from Table 1, only fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B on language-centric data has serious over-fitting problems that the performance is dropped sharply, especially on low-resource settings, with a loss of 3.2 spBLEU on $\mathrm{Ne} \rightarrow \mathrm{X}$ translation and 3.1 spBLEU on $\mathrm{Az} \rightarrow \mathrm{X}$ translation. Like this baseline, Lego-MT also introduces language-specific parameters but does not show any performance drop. The key difference between Lego-MT with M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric fine-tuning lies in that Lego-MT introduces multilingual branches as regularization, demonstrating that the unified space can avoid catastrophic forgetting. + +Lego-MT supports efficient training, which is $28.2 \times$ faster than multi-way training. For simplification, we implement an 8-branch architecture where Lego-MT and the multi-way model both have 8 branches for encoder and decoders. We use Chinese-centric data in the first shard and select $7\mathrm{Zh} \rightarrow \mathrm{X}$ and $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Zh}$ translations as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). For two models, all 8 encoder branches are initialized with the encoder part of M2M-100-418M, and all 8 decoder branches are initialized with the decoder part of M2M-100-418M. Due to the large parameter size, the multi-way model requires fewer tokens in a single batch. Lego-MT has less parameter size during each inference and thus can support more tokens in a single batch. For a fair comparison, we use the same settings for two models and set the number of tokens in a single batch to 3K. Due to the low GPU efficiency issues, the multi-way model takes 16.9 hours to finish one shard training on average while Lego-MT only takes 0.6 hours. + +The total training cost of Lego-MT is only about twice that of M2M-1.2B fine-tuning. In the first stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific encoder, and in the second stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific decoder. Compared to M2M-1.2B, the additional computations come from training language-specific parameters. Since the language-specific branch has the same size as the multilingual branch, the training costs only double. We believe that the training costs for such a model are reasonable, given its one-time training + +
Method#TokensSize (GB)Time (Hour)
Multi-Way Training3,00060.916.9
Lego-MT Training3,00010.30.6
+ +Table 2: Training efficiency of Lego-MT and a multi-way model. "#Tokens" represent the maximum tokens in a single batch during training. For a fair comparison, we initialize an 8-branch Lego-MT and an 8-branch multi-way model with M2M-100-418M as initialization. Size represents the size of the loaded parameters. "Time" represents the total time of completing all data (We select a small subset of training data for evaluation). In Lego-MT, we use a parallel thread for branch switching, which does not affect the running time. Lego-MT supports efficient training, which achieves $28.2 \times$ speedups over multi-way training. + +feature. In real-world applications with unlimited data, inference costs are more critical than training costs. The advantage of Lego-MT is that it largely improves translation performance without incurring additional inference costs. + +# 5 Analysis on Lego-MT + +Ablation studies on triple-Flow training We design three flows in Lego-MT: Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Mix-Flow contains a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder, which is essential in regularizing language-specific training. We start from M-Flow and see how Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow affect the final performance, which gives more insights into the design of our framework. For simplification, we use Chinese-centric data in top-10 shards and select $7\mathrm{Zh}\rightarrow \mathrm{X}$ and $\mathrm{X}\rightarrow \mathrm{Zh}$ translation pairs as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). We train Lego-MT on the selected set and observe results in Table 3. We can see that jointly training Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow boosts the performance in most directions. In contrast, jointly training Dec-Flow and Mix-Flow causes large performance degeneration. It is mainly because that language-specific decoder may cause a large distribution shift on multilingual encoders, resulting in catastrophic forgetting. That's why we split the training into two stages and keeps Dec-Flow in the second stage. + +Analysis on inference path section Due to the plug-and-play features, there are several possible inference paths for a single translation direction. At the inference stage, there are three alternative solutions for language-centric translation: Mix-Flow, + +
LangMix-FlowDec-Flow + Mix-FlowEnc-Flow + Mix-Flow
x→zhzh→xx→zhzh→xx→zhzh→x
Be8.13.57.53.313.16.1
De16.014.714.013.422.119.2
Fa13.111.911.611.317.715.1
Jv6.33.16.03.18.83.3
Ne9.65.68.74.27.24.0
Pa1.41.11.20.51.80.5
Sw8.58.67.56.612.412.4
AVG.9.06.98.16.111.98.7
+ +Table 3: Ablation studies on Triple-Flow training. $\rightarrow$ zh refers to the results of translating to zh and $\mathrm{zh}\rightarrow$ refers to the results of translating from zh. Dec-Flow brings a large performance drop. + +
ModelCeb→HaCeb→IgCeb→LnCeb→YoAVG.
M-1.2B5.55.90.92.43.7
M-12B8.710.80.92.95.8
M-FT6.46.60.82.14.0
Lego-MT12.513.92.33.28.0
ModelHa→CebIg→CebLn→CebYo→CebAVG.
M-1.2B7.47.54.23.45.6
M-12B8.88.83.84.16.4
M-FT7.58.63.74.86.2
Lego-MT12.312.36.26.79.4
ModelX→AstX→DaX→HuX→LoAVG.
M-1.2B16.722.017.74.815.3
M-12B13.023.319.19.016.1
M-FT13.823.217.80.913.9
Lego-MT15.425.420.15.616.6
ModelAst→XDa→XHu→XLo→XAVG.
M-1.2B13.218.316.06.613.5
M-12B15.220.918.28.815.8
M-FT14.417.915.55.813.4
Lego-MT15.520.818.18.915.8
+ +Table 4: The results on unseen directions that are not covered by the constructed dataset. "M" means M2M-100. Lego-MT shows the best generalization results. "M-FT" means M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual FT. + +Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Figure 2 shows the comparison between these inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg., Ceb, Az, Ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). High-resource languages (eg., En, De, Zh, Ar) prefer language-specific branches. Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths. This demonstrates that specific parameters are more important when the amount of data in a language is huge. In summary, the Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) is recommended for inference tasks with low-resource languages, and the Dec-FLow (M-encoder + D-decoder) is more appropriate for high-resource languages. + +Lego-MT can learn the align different branches + +![](images/817bfc7de679ef3a22fd655d0a4533b4ca35fa474cfa71e888212c868e5d93f3.jpg) +Figure 3: The comparison between different inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg. ceb, az, ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). For high-resource languages (eg., en, de, zh, ar), Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths. + +![](images/433252e8de01418292dd325fe0390ded0cbe14d8b406e53637dfc32399b89320.jpg) +Figure 4: The spBLEU gap between Mix-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder) and unseen language-specific Flow (the combination of a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder). Positive numbers mean the results of the language-specific Flow are better than that of the M-Flow. The unseen language-specific Flow achieves better results on 9 out of 12 directions, demonstrating that Lego-MT can learn the alignment for different branches. + +into a unified space. During training, we propose a triple-flow way to train Lego-MT. These three flows contain Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow. To evaluate the quality of the hidden representations, we conduct experiments by directly using a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder for inference. Since such combinations do not occur in the training phase, it can evaluate the quality of the unified hidden space. We randomly combine the language-specific encoder and the language-specific decoder of four high-resource languages (En, De, Zh, Ar) with 12 translation directions. Figure 4 shows the performance of directly combining language-specific encoder and decoder. We find that such unseen combinations can get better results in most translation directions (9 out of 12). These results prove that Lego-MT can effectively map all languages into a unified space. + +
ModelAst→XHu→XDa→XLo→XEn→XDe→XAr→XAz→XCeb→XNe→XZh→XAVG.
Multilingual FT3.82.62.76.37.64.21.72.60.96.23.73.9
Lego-MT14.210.111.917.520.614.16.912.25.817.711.713.1
ModelX→AstX→HuX→DaX→LoX→EnX→DeX→ArX→AzX→CebX→NeX→ZhAVG.
Multilingual FT4.92.21.66.910.83.00.52.70.77.84.34.1
Lego-MT14.18.810.517.824.113.73.611.04.021.211.812.9
+ +Table 5: Commencing with random initialization, $1/7$ of the data is trained and the performance differential between Multilingual-FT and Lego-MT is evaluated. The findings indicate that the mean performance of Lego-MT across all language orientations surpasses that of Multilingual-FT and exhibits a more rapid convergence rate. + +
ModelX→EnEn→XAVG.
ChatGPT zero-shot27.923.925.9
ChatGPT eight-shot31.924.728.3
Lego-MT30.225.728.0
+ +Table 6: Comparison of ChatGPT and Lego-MT: zero-shot and eight-shot results. While ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT in zero-shot performance, it outperforms Lego-MT in the $\mathrm{X}\rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ direction with eight-shot. However, in the $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{X}$ direction, ChatGPT falls behind Lego-MT even with eight-shot. + +In addition, it proves that the performance of high-resource languages still has room for improvement by using language-specific parameters. + +Lego-MT achieves promising results in unseen directions. We also conduct experiments on unseen directions to evaluate Lego-MT's performance in these scenarios, as demonstrated in Table 4. Distinguishing unseen translation directions can involve two scenarios: 1) The training data set lacks a specific translation direction. In this case, we start with the low-resource Ceb language and identify translation directions not included in our constructed data set. 2) The training data set lacks a direct translation between two languages. For instance, our training corpus may contain translations from Ast to En and from En to Es, but not a direct translation from Ast to Es. To address this, we randomly select four languages (Ast, Da, Hu, Lo) and evaluate the average performance on the Flores-101 devtest with one-to-many and many-to-one settings. According to all experimental results, Lego-MT significantly surpasses the Multilingual FT baseline and is on par with the M2M-100-12B. + +Lego-MT performance is independent of pretrained model initialization and converges faster than existing pre-training pipelines. To evaluate the necessity of pre-trained model initialization, we compare Lego-MT with the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline that uses a single encoder-decoder model for all languages. We con + +duct experiments on a subset of our constructed corpus, which contains parallel data for 433 languages. We randomly initialize both models and train them on only $1/7$ of the data, then measure their performance on Flores-101. As shown in Table 5, our experimental results demonstrate that our Lego-MT model is independent of the pre-trained model initialization and achieves faster convergence than the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline. Moreover, our Lego-MT model outperforms the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline on most of the machine translation tasks, showing its superior generalization and adaptation ability. + +Lego-MT surpasses ChatGPT in the $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{X}$ direction and is on par with ChatGPT in the $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ direction, in terms of performance. A comparative analysis between ChatGPT and LegoMT, as shown in Table 6, reveals that in zero-shot performance, ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT. However, in eight-shot performance, ChatGPT surpasses Lego-MT in the $\mathrm{X} \rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ direction but falls short in the $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{X}$ direction. The prompts utilized for ChatGPT are "You are a helpful assistant that translates {SOURCELANG} to {TARGETLANG}." for the system and "Translate the following {SOURCELANG} text to {TARGETLANG}: {SOURCE_TEXT}." for the user. + +# 6 Conclusion + +With the increasing scale of languages, using a single model to translate all directions brings new challenges in practice. This paper proposes an efficient training recipe, which results in a detachable multilingual translation model, Lego-MT. To validate the effectiveness of our algorithm, we develop a massive MNMT translation dataset, covering 433 languages. Results on Flores-101 show that Lego-MT-1.2B achieves large performance improvements over strong baselines under a fair comparison. It even outperforms the result of M2M12B with a gain of 4 BLEU on many-to-one. + +# References + +Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00089. +Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478. +Ankur Bapna and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1538-1548, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marta R. Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. CoRR, abs/2207.04672. +Raj Dabre, Chenhui Chu, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2020. A survey of multilingual neural machine translation. ACM Comput. Surv., 53(5). +Damai Dai, Li Dong, Shuming Ma, Bo Zheng, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Stablemoe: Stable routing strategy for mixture of experts. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 7085-7095. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Siddharth Dalmia, Dmytro Okhonko, Mike Lewis, Sergey Edunov, Shinji Watanabe, Florian Metze, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2022. Legonn: Building modular encoder-decoder models. +Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, Wei He, Dianhai Yu, and Haifeng Wang. 2015. Multi-task learning for multiple language translation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics(ACL). +Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with + +mixture-of-experts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5547-5569. PMLR. +Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48. +William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. +Orhan First, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Multi-way, multilingual neural machine translation with a shared attention mechanism. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). +Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, Peng-Jen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzman, and Angela Fan. 2022. The flores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingual machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:522-538. +Jiatao Gu, Hany Hassan, Jacob Devlin, and Victor O.K. Li. 2018. Universal neural machine translation for extremely low resource languages. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). +Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016a. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation. +Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016b. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation. +Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87. +Baijun Ji, Zhirui Zhang, Xiangyu Duan, Min Zhang, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2020. Cross-lingual pre-training based transfer for zero-shot neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 115–122. +Melvin Johnson, Mike Schuster, Quoc V Le, Maxim Krikun, Yonghui Wu, Zhifeng Chen, Nikhil Thorat, Fernanda Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Greg Corrado, et al. 2017. Google's multilingual neural machine translation system: Enabling zero-shot translation. + +Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:339-351. +Jason Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Fully character-level neural machine translation without explicit segmentation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:365-378. +Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020. Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668. +Xian Li and Hongyu Gong. 2021. Robust optimization for multilingual translation with imbalanced data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). +Zehui Lin, Xiao Pan, Mingxuan Wang, Xipeng Qiu, Jiangtao Feng, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2020. Pretraining multilingual neural machine translation by leveraging alignment information. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). +Zehui Lin, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning language specific sub-network for multilingual machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). +Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742. +Sungwon Lyu, Bokyung Son, Kichang Yang, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Revisiting Modularized Multilingual NMT to Meet Industrial Demands. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5905-5918, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). +Xiao Pan, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Contrastive learning for many-to-many multilingual neural machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). +Devendra Sachan and Graham Neubig. 2018. Parameter sharing methods for multilingual self-attentional translation models. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 261–271, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538. +Zhenqiao Song, Hao Zhou, Lihua Qian, Jingjing Xu, Shanbo Cheng, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. switch-glat: Multilingual parallel machine translation via code-switch decoder. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). +Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Multilingual translation via grafting pre-trained language models. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) - Findings. +Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). +Biao Zhang, Philip Williams, Ivan Titov, and Rico Sennrich. 2020. Improving massively multilingual neural machine translation and zero-shot translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11867. +Yaoming Zhu, Jiangtao Feng, Chengqi Zhao, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Counter-interference adapter for multilingual machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 2812-2823. +Barret Zoph and Kevin Knight. 2016. Multi-source neural translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.00710. + +# Limitation + +Despite promising results, we also notice several limitations in this paper. First, we find that low-resource translation is not boosted by language-specific decoders and language-specific encoders, which require more exploration of the trade-off between parameter sharing and parameter tension. Second, the evaluation of few-shot languages still remains a large problem. Although the final training dataset covers 433 languages, we only evaluate the translation performance on the available evaluation set that only covers 86 languages since baselines do not support so many languages. More standard benchmarks are required for evaluation. + +# A Dataset construction + +In this section, we will describe the construction details of the Many-to-Many dataset. As shown in Table 5, the pipeline mainly consists of six steps: + +![](images/c0bc75fc823c8a809464b9cbc19376d4ee0c76413776773fbbbf1df09e6952b6.jpg) +Figure 5: The construction pipeline for Many-to-Many dataset. + +Step 1: Data Collection The raw data is collected from OPUS7, which is an open corpus that collects numerous parallel sentences from the web and overs a large number of domains from legislative to religious texts. + +Step 2: Data Unification Since the OPUS includes datasets from different sources, it leads to the following two significant issues. + +1) Different Language Code: Some language in OPUS has several corresponding language codes. One of the reasons is that different corpora use different standards for language code, including + +ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3 or self-defined language codes in OPUS. Another reason is that some corpora append region ids at the end of language codes to distinguish the same language used in different regions. To unify language codes, we replace ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 language codes with ISO 639-1 language codes if the codes from ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 have the same language name in the code set published by SIL International (formerly known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics) $^{8}$ . +2) Inconsistent Operation: Some datasets pre-tokensize their sentences in OPUS, especially for Chinese and Japanese. + +Therefore, we remove the region id if the language code ends with a region id. All replaced language codes are shown in Table 7. For the language codes out of ISO 639 series, we list them and the corpus they come from in Table 9. Furthermore, we report all used language codes and the full names of their corresponding languages in our dataset in Table 10. Then we detokenize all sentences by removing white space and unifying our texts. + +Step 3: Data Merging After data unification, the parallel data is merged with the same language code pair from a different corpus. + +Step 4: Data Cleaning The OPUS corpus collected from the web contains some poor-quality data. The main problems are: + +1) Duplication: we use the dedduplication script from fairseq to remove all duplicated sentence pairs for each language pair. +2) Missing Translation: We remove the sentence without corresponding translation or repeating itself as translation. +3) Length Mismatching: After segmentation the sentences with white space for most languages or individual characters for Chinese and Japanese, we apply a filtering script from Moses decoder10 to remove the sentences that the length is more than 250 words or three times difference in length between source and target sentences. + +Step 5: Train-Dev-Test Split Different traindev-test split schemes are developed based on the data quantity. + +1) A parallel data with more than 6,000 sentence pairs. We randomly sample separately about 2,000 sentence pairs as validation and test set, respectively. And the rest is train set. +2) A parallel data with fewer than 6,000 sentence pairs. We take $80\%$ , $10\%$ , $10\%$ of all samples as train, validation, and test. + +To avoid any overlap between our training data and used benchmark test data, we filter all sentences that exist in the common benchmarks (WMT, Flores-101) from our train and validation set. + +Step 6: Data Preprocessing The data preprocessing consists of two main steps: + +1) Sampling: Because the full dataset is huge, we sample some data for our training. The final dataset contains 1,307,143,514 sentence pairs, 433 languages, and 1,922 training pairs. +2) Preprocessing: The data is preprocess using the SentencePiece tokenizer provided by Fan et al. (2021) with a shared vocabulary of size 128,112. + +
OriginalReplacedOriginalReplacedOriginalReplaced
akakaeses_HNptpt_BR
amamheses_ECptpt_br
araraeses_COptpt_PT
arar_SYfafa_IRrnrun
arar_TNfafa_AFrwkin
ayaymfffulsnsna
azaz_IRfrfr_FRsosom
bgbg_BGfrfr_CAsrsrp
bmbamfrfr_BEsrsr_ME
bnbn_INfrfr_castsot
cacathahauswswa
dada_DKhihi_INtata_LK
dede_CHigibotgtg_TJ
dede_ATitit_ITtitir
dede_DEjpjaptltl_PH
eses_CLkrkautrtr_TR
eses_SVkvkpvurur_PK
eses_NIlnlinvivi_VN
eses_UYmgmlgwowol
eses_PEmsms_MYxhxho
eses_VEnbnb_NOyoyor
eses_ARndsnds_nlzeze_zh
eses_MXnlnl_NLzeze_en
eses_PAnlnl_BEzhzh_cn
eses_CRnnnn_NOzhzh_CN
eses_PRnono_nbzthradzh_HK
eses_ESnynyazthradzh_TW
eses_GTomormzthradzh_tw
eses_DOpapanzuzul
+ +Table 7: Code Replacement List. We use the codes in the column "Original" to replace the codes in the column "replaced" if these replaced codes exist in OPUS. + +
CodeEnDeArZhNeAzCeb
#Sentence Pairs811,238,712360,369,144152,457,83092,763,4456,654,2704,208,0251,683,531
+ +Table 8: The number of sentence pairs for each core language in Lego-MT training, + +
CodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDataset
crpbible-uedincbMultiCCAlignedszMultiCCAlignedsgnQEDcyclTatoeba
tcEUbookshopcxMultiCCAlignedzzMultiCCAlignediroQEDnahTatoeba
zhsGlobalVoicesnsMultiCCAlignedzeOpenSubtitlesmoQED,Ubuntu
zhtGlobalVoicesqdMultiCCAlignedbhQEDberQED,Ubuntu
tmpGNOMEqaMultiCCAlignedbntQEDtokiTatoeba
grGNOMEtzMultiCCAlignedryQEDkzjTatoeba
+ +Table 9: Unknown Language Codes, which are out of ISO 639 series. We can't confirm their full names. + +
LanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCode
AbkhazianabCorsicancoIbaniblaLower SorbiandsbOssetianosSwahili (macrolanguage)sw
AchineseaceCreecrIcelandicisLukpadopOttoman Turkish (1500-1928)otaSwtiss
Achuar-ShiwiaracuCreekmusIdoioLuo (Kenya and Tanzania)luoPaite ChinpckSwedishsv
AdygheadyCrimean TatarchrIgboigLushootseedlutPalaunpauSwiss Germangsw
AfaraaCroatianhrIlokiloLuxembourgishlbPalipiSyriacsyr
AfrihiliafhCusco QuechuaquzIndonesianidLuyialuyPampangapamTachawitshy
AfrikaansafCzechcsIngrianizhMacedonianmkPangasinanpagTachelihshi
AguarunaagrDanishdaInghushinhMacedo-RomanianrupPanjabipaTagal Murutmvv
Ainu (Japan)ainDariprsInterlinguaiaMaduresemadPapiamentopapTagalogtl
AkanakDinkadinInterlingueieMaithilimaiPapuan MalaypmyTahaggart Tamahaqthv
AkawaioakeDrentsdrtInuktitutiuMalagasymgPedinsoTahitianty
AkanlonaklDungandngInupiaqikMalay (individual language)zlmPennsylvania GermanpdcTajiktg
AlbaniansqDutchnlIranian PersianpesMalay (macrolanguage)msPersianfaTalusssantzl
Algerian ArabicarqDutton World SpeedwordsdwsIrishgaMalayalammlPhoenicianphnTalyshtly
American Sign LanguageaseDzongkhadzItalianitMaltesemtPicardpedTamashektmh
AmharicamEastern Canadian InuktitutikeJakunjakMammamPiemontesepmsTamilta
Ancient Greek (to 1453)grcEastern MarimhrJamaican Creole EnglishjamMambaemgnPipilpplTarifitrif
Ancient HebrewhboEastern Maroon CreoledjkJapanesejaMandarin ChinesecmnPlateau MalagasypltTase Naganst
ArabicarEfikefiJavanesejvManxgvPolishplTatartt
ArgonesseanEgyptian ArabicartzJewish Babylonian AramaictmrMaorimiPortugueseptTelugute
ArmenianhyEmilianeglKabylekabMarathimrPotawatomipotTena Lowland Quichuaqw
ArpitanfrpEnglishenKadazan DusundtpMarshallesemhPrussianprgTetelingino Nahuatlnhg
AsháninkacniErzyamyvKalaallusitklMesopotamian ArabicacmPushtopsTetumtet
AssameseasEsperantoeoKalmykxalMiahuatlán ZapoteczamQuechuaquThaith
AsturianastEstonianetKamba (Kenya)kamMiddle English (1100-1500)emmQuenyaqyaTibetanbo
AvaricavEvenkievnKamadaknMiddle French (ca. 1400-1600)frmQuitopepec ChinantechchqTigrinyati
AvestanaeEweeeKanurikrMikasukimikRapanuirapTohono O'odhamood
AwadiyaawaExtremaduranextKaçchikelcakMi'kmaqmicRomanianroTok Pisintpi
AymaraayFaroeosefoKaraliankrlMin Dong ChinesecdoRomanshrnTonga (Tonga Islands)to
AzerbaijanazFiji HindihifKashmiriksMin Nan ChinesenanRomanyromTraditional Chinesezhtrad
BaluchibalFijianfjKashubiancsbMinangkabauminRundirnTsongats
BambarabmFilipinofilKazakhkkMingrelianxmfRussianruTswanatn
BanjarbjnFinnishfiKekchikekMirandesemwIRusynrueTupitpw
Barasana-EduriabsnFrenchfrKhakasikjhMiskitomiqSamoansmTurkishtr
BashkirbaFriulianfurKhasikhaModern Greek (1453-)elSamogtiansgsTurkmentk
BasqueeuFulahffKhemerkmMohawkmohSangosgTuvalutvl
BavarianbarGalelagbiK'iche'qucMongolianmnSanskritsaTwitw
BaybayanonbvyGalicianglKikuyukikMorisienymfeSantalisatUab Metoaoz
BelarusianbeGan ChineseganKinyarwandarwMoroccan ArabicarySardinianscUdmurtudm
Bemba (Zambia)bemGandalgKirghizkyMossimosSatterffriesischstqUighurug
BengalibnGarhwaligbmKlingonthhNaurunaScotsscoUkrainianuk
BerombornGeorgiankaKoaatikuNavajonvScottish GaelicgdUmappk
BhojpuribhoGermandeKölschkshNeapolitannapSediqtrvUmbunduumb
BislamabiGheg AlbanianalnKomiikvNepali (individual language)npiSerbiansrUpper Sorbianhsb
Bodo (India)brxGilbertesegilKomii-PermyakkoiNepali (macrolanguage)neSerbo-CroatianshUrduur
BosnianbsGoan KonkanigomKongokgNigerian FulfuldefuvShanshnUspanteccousp
BretonbrGothicgotKoreankoNiueanniuShonasnUzbekuz
BritheningbztGroningsgosKotavaavkNogainogShuarjvVendave
BuginesebugGuadeloupean Creole FrenchgcfKriangngtNorth Levantine ArabicapcSchuswapshsVenetianvec
BulgarianbgGuaranignKuanyamakjNorth Molucan MalaymaxSicilianscnVietnamesevi
BuraitibuaGuerrero AmuzgoamuKurdishkuNorthern FrisianfrrSilesianszlVlaamsvls
BurmesemyGuerrero NahuatlnguKven FinnishfkvNorthern KurdishkmrSindarinsjnVolapukvo
CabecarcjpGujaratguLaidanldnNorthern SamiseSindisdWalloonwa
CamsékbhGulf ArabicafbLadinlldNorthwestern OjibwaobjSinhalasiWalserwae
CatalancaHaidahaiLadinoladNorwegiannoSlovakskWaray (Philippines)war
CebuanocebHaitianhtLakotalktNorwegian BokmålnbSlovenianslWelshcy
Central Huasteca NahuatlnchHakka ChincnhLaoloNorwegian NynorsknnSomalisoWestern Frisanfy
Central KurdishckbHakka ChinesehakLatgalianltgNovialnovSouth AzerbaijaniazbWestern Panjabipnb
Central SamasmlHausahaLatinlaNuernusSouth NdebelenrWolaytawal
ChamorrochHawaiianhawLatvianlvNyanjanySouthern KurdishsdhWolofwo
ChavacanocbkHebrewheLigurianlijOccitan (post 1500)ocSouthern SamismaWu Chinesewuu
ChechenceHilgaynonhilLimburganliOld English (ca. 450-1100)angSouthern SothostXhosaxh
CherokeechrHindihiLingalalnOld French (842-ca. 1400)froSouthwestern DinkadikYakutsah
ChhattisgarhihneHiri MotuhoLingua Franca NovalfnOld FrisanofsSpanishesYaquiyqa
ChinesezhHmong DawmwwLiterary ChineselzhOld NorsenonStandard MalayzsmYiddishyi
ChoctawchoHohocLithuanianltOld RussianovrStandard Moroccan TamazightzghYorubayo
Church SlaviccuHuastechusLivlivOld SpanishospSumeriansuxZarmadje
ChuvashcvHungarianhuLojbanjboOriya (macrolanguage)orSundanesesuZazaza
CopticcopHunsrikhrxLomburdlmoOrizaba NahuatlnlvSwaibanswgZuluzu
CornishkwHupahupLow GermanndsOromoomSwahili (individual language)swh
+ +Table 10: List of Languages. Our dataset mainly use ISO 639 series as language code. For traditional Chinese, we define “zhtrad” as code. + +A For every submission: + +A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section "Limitation" +A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank. +A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? see the abstract and introduction in the paper. +A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. + +B Did you use or create scientific artifacts? + +Left blank. + +B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank. +B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank. +B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank. +B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank. +B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix +B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix + +C Did you run computational experiments? + +4 + +C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? see section 4.4. + +The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance. + +C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? see section 4.3. +C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? see section 4. +C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? see section 4.3 + +# D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants? + +Left blank. + +D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank. +D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank. +D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank. +D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank. +D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/images.zip b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f14a95a0402d21145fd9da2af4e90eb37b194c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:570f5a802e578400e6be58bac665ae7f1fdc7b836f80364fce00e28faa9d1aac +size 777537 diff --git a/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/layout.json b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dba8c9608999ccccedc32edf92a90b04d9ecfc84 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Lego-MT_ Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10396 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 70, + 434, + 102 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 70, + 434, + 102 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 70, + 434, + 102 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT: Learning Detachable Models for Massively Multilingual Machine Translation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei Yuan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yinquan Lu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Wenhao Zhu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Lingpeng Kong" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Lei Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yu Qiao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jingjing Xu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 109, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 139, + 505, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 139, + 505, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 139, + 505, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 139, + 505, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 153, + 476, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 153, + 476, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 153, + 476, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 The University of Hong Kong, 4 University of California, Santa Barbara" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 528, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 528, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 528, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yuanfei, luyinquan, qiaoyu}@pjlab.org.cn, zhuwh@smail.nju.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 181, + 506, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 181, + 506, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 181, + 506, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lpk@cs.hku.hk,leili@cs.ucsb.edu,jingjingxupku.02@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) aims to build a unified model for many language directions. Existing monolithic models for MNMT encounter two challenges: parameter interference among languages and inefficient inference for large models. In this paper, we revisit the classic multi-way structures and develop a detachable model by assigning each language (or group of languages) to an individual branch that supports plug-and-play training and inference. To address the needs of learning representations for all languages in a unified space, we propose a novel efficient training recipe, upon which we build an effective detachable model, Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we collect data from OPUS and build a translation benchmark covering 433 languages and 1.3B parallel data. Experiments show that Lego-MT with 1.2B parameters brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. It even outperforms M2M-100 with 12B parameters. The proposed training recipe brings a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "28.2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup over the conventional multi-way training method." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 154, + 551 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 154, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 154, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 292, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 292, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 292, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multilingual neural machine translation (MNMT) translates languages by mapping a source sentence to a unified representation space and decoding a target sentence from this space (Johnson et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Neubig and Hu, 2018; Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Traditional MNMT models use a shared network to align representations in different languages. Recently, scaling up the size of MNMT models brings significant quantitative improvements and new qualitative capabilities (M2M-100, Fan et al. 2021; NLLB-200, Costa-jussa et al. 2022; inter alia). Beyond MNMT, recent large-scale language models (e.g., ChatGPT) also show promising results on zero-shot (or" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 229, + 501, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 229, + 501, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 229, + 501, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 229, + 501, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2d3d7dd25d30308862d870c823cd56ba633b3bc6cf7f10838027164edac1535c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 527, + 437 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 527, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 527, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Multi-way architecture. (1) Monolithic Model is the fully-shared model for all translation directions; (2) Lego-MT is a multi-way structure that includes both multilingual (denoted as M) and language-specific encoders and decoders for English (denoted as E), Chinese (denoted as C) and Nepali (denotes as N). The architecture is detachable at inference time where only a specific encoder and decoder are needed. U (Unified space) represents hidden representations generated by encoders." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 526, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "few-shot) translation, especially for language-to-English translation. Despite great potential, there is still a large gap between LLMs and existing MNMT models on massive translation directions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simply using a shared model for massive MNMT brings new effectiveness and efficiency issues. First, memorizing multilingual knowledge within finite parameters causes parameter interference (Ha et al., 2016a), especially between high-resource and low-resource languages (Li and Gong, 2021), which leads to significant performance degradation. Second, the centralization feature requires all parameters to be included in the computation graph during the inference stage, resulting in heavy computational overhead (Song et al., 2021). Common fixes of these issues include adapter-based approaches (Zhu et al., 2021), which handle parameter interference via fine-tuning new parameters to fit bilingual translation, and mixture-of-expert (MoE), which supports dynamic activation. These methods either fail to adapt to massive translation directions or require all parameters to be loaded into memory, thus remaining unsatisfactory consid-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 274, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 274, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 274, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'https://github.com/CONE-MT/Lego-MT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11518" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 11518-11533 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 268, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ering the efficiency of training and inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 291, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To find out the best recipe for massive multilingual translation, we revisit the classic multi-way (or multi-branch) architecture (Dong et al., 2015; Firat et al., 2016), whose philosophy is to allocate an individual encoder and decoder for each language (or group of languages), as shown in Figure 1. The immediate benefit of this structure is: 1) The utilization of individual modules for specific languages mitigates parameter interference; 2) Each branch can be independently loaded during inference, significantly reducing computational costs and decreasing inference latency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 291, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite appealing, there remain two big challenges when training multi-way structures: representation alignment between different languages due to the lack of shared parameters; and low GPU efficiency during training because unused parameters occupy GPU memory but do not have any computations. Furthermore, the feature of random language mixture in a batch makes it infeasible to use an online-loading method (i.e., loading during usage) to accelerate training since it will cause impractical IO communication costs during batch switching (between CPU and GPU)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these challenges, we propose a novel training recipe, which results in our new detachable model, Lego-MT. We classify the training data into different language-centric groups such that we only need to load specific branches into GPU memory, eliminating the need to load different modules constantly. The language-centric group is trained in sequential order. Second, during each language-centric training, we introduce a multilingual branch and propose a new triple-flow method to help a model learn to map to and translate from a unified space. Specifically, a unified space is a type of representation space rather than a module. It creates a common representation of language that can be used across multiple language tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate our training recipe for massive MNMT, we construct a many-to-many translation dataset" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 679 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " covering 7 language-centric groups, 433 languages, based on the open-source website OPUS" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 679 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Tiedemann, 2012)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 291, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT-1.2B yields average gains of 3.2 spBLEU, and even outperforms M2M-100-12B which has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " inference parameters. Furthermore, the proposed training recipe brings a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "28.2 \\times" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "speedup compared with the conventional multiway training method. We also conduct comprehensive experiments on branch combinations, thanks to the detachable nature of the model. We find that low-resource languages prefer multilingual branches and high-resource languages prefer language-specific branches. In addition, we also observe that the unseen combination of a high-resource language encoder and a high-resource language decoder can achieve better performance, showing that Lego-MT can align different branches into a unified space effectively. The main contributions can be summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 525, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 525, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 525, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We build an effective detachable model LegoMT for multilingual machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 275, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 275, + 525, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 275, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Experiments demonstrate that Lego-MT brings an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU. This training recipe results in a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 275, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "28.2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 275, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " training speedup compared with the naive multi-branch architecture." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 329, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 329, + 524, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 329, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We construct a massive multilingual translation dataset covering 433 languages, which greatly extends the scale of languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 396, + 395 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 396, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 396, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this part, we review recent related multilingual machine translation models. We classify them into three categories: fully / group-shared (Dabre et al., 2020), and Mixture-of-expert (MoE)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The fully-shared model is the most prevalent model in Multilingual Neural Machine Translation (MNMT). This model employs a single architecture to translate in all directions (Ha et al., 2016b; Johnson et al., 2017; Bapna et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021) and has demonstrated efficacy in aiding low-resource directions. However, fully-shared models are often subject to capacity bottlenecks and trade-offs between translation quality and the number of languages (Aharoni et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020; Ha et al., 2016a). Group-shared models incorporate individual parameters for each group and represent a popular solution for sharing language-specific encoders or decoders (Lee et al., 2017; Zoph and Knight, 2016). Lee et al. (2017); Sachan and Neubig (2018); Ji et al. (2020); Lyu et al. (2020); Sachan and Neubig (2018) proposed an MNMT model only for shared language-specific modules. LaSS (Lin et al., 2021) learns language-specific sub-networks for each language direction for multilingual translation. Adpater methods (Bapna and Firat, 2019; Zhu et al., 2021)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2The dataset is released on https://github.com/ CONE-MT/Lego-MT.git." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 197, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 197, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 197, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://opus.nlpl.eu." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11519" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 496, + 238 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 496, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 496, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 68, + 496, + 238 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c5d5f1254d128890322a7c18465c2aa9e61a02340b1b4e678d8c4f80c09f71f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 526, + 335 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 526, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 526, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overview of Lego-MT and training recipe. During training, we introduce an efficient training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. The language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. During each training phase, only language-specific parameters are loaded into GPU memory. The training maintains three flows: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (Multilingual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. U means the unified space, hidden representations generated by encoders." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "add additional side networks to each language direction in addition to the main multilingual Transformer encoder-decoder. While these studies can alleviate the capacity bottleneck to some extent, challenges remain when handling larger-scale languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 291, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) has recently emerged as a prominent research direction (Jacobs et al., 1991; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussa et al., 2022), which are sparsely activated, with each inference only activating a subset of parameters. Researchers have applied MoE to massively multilingual translation and introduced various regularization strategies to enhance performance (Dai et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). Despite promising results, MoE's objective differs from ours, as it still requires the entire structure to be stored in GPU memory during inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The encoder-decoder structure has demonstrated considerable flexibility through the utilization of the Lego-NN (Dalmia et al., 2022). The Lego-NN can be applied to various tasks with decoder modules being detachable, in contrast, the Lego-MT model design allows for the performance of massively MNMT with all modules being detachable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 373, + 367 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 373, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 373, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Lego-MT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 375, + 387 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 375, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 375, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper aims to build a detachable multi-branch model with a language (or group)-specific encoder and a language (or group)-specific decoder. As shown in Figure 2, the detachable structure provides an effective mechanism to only load a part of modules during training and inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During training, we introduce a new training method by classifying multilingual data into language-centric groups. During each training phase, only language-centric data and related branches are loaded. All language-centric groups are trained in a sequential way. We empirically found that the orders contribute little to the final performance and we fix the training order for simplification in the next parts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During each language-centric training phase, we introduce a multi-lingual branch to help language-specific branches learn to encode to a unified space and decode from a unified space. Unified Space is a concept that aims to map all languages into a unified representation space without any parameters. This concept is used in natural language processing and machine learning to create a common representation of language (Lyu et al., 2020; Fan et al., 2021) that can be used across different languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The training maintains triple-flow: Enc-Flow (language-specific encoder + multilingual decoder) for training specific encoder, Dec-Flow (multilin" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11520" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 74, + 226, + 86 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 74, + 226, + 86 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 74, + 226, + 86 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: Triple-flow training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Epoch number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Training data for Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow t_N}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow \\cdot} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow t_N}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow \\lg},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow \\lg},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow \\lg}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. The parameters used for Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow are initialized as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{m} = \\theta_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{e} = \\theta_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note, the parameters used for Dec-Flow are initialized as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_d = \\theta_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " after training of Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. \nfor epoch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n Shuffle " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". to obtain a new training sequence. \nfor each batch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_e\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\rightarrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". do \n Evaluate the objective by Equation 2 on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_e = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_b} - \\log P_{\\theta_e}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n Get a minibatch of multilingual data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_m\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n Evaluate the objective by Equation 1 on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_m = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_m} - \\log P_{\\theta_m}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n Update " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{m}\\gets \\theta_{m} - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_{m}}(l_{m} + l_{e})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{e}\\gets \\theta_{e} - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_{e}}l_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nend \nend \nfor epoch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n Shuffle " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain a new training sequence. \nfor each batch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_d\\in \\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n Calculate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by Equation 3: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_d = \\sum_{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}\\sim \\mathcal{D}_d} - \\log P_{\\theta_d}(\\mathbf{y}|\\mathbf{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n Update " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_d\\gets \\theta_d - \\eta \\nabla_{\\theta_d}l_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 87, + 505, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nend" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 1, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gual encoder + language-specific decoder) to train language-specific decoder, and Mix-Flow (multilingual encoder + multilingual decoder) to avoid the overfitting of multilingual encoder and decoder to each language-centric training data. Surprisingly, we find that Dec-flow cannot be trained together with Mix/Enc-flow, resulting in catastrophic forgetting in the multilingual encoder (detailed discussion in Section 5). Therefore, the basic training processes can be briefly divided into two stages: the Mix/Enc-Flow phase and the Dec-Flow phase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During inference, there are three alternative flows in Lego-MT for language-centric translation to be translated (\"Inference Stage\" in Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, users can decide to choose which path for inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 563, + 194, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 563, + 194, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 563, + 194, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Triple-Flow Training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a multilingual dataset with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " languages, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{multi}} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\rightarrow t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\rightarrow t_N}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\rightarrow t_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains a parallel data from the source language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the target language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i\\in N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") language being translated from, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j\\in N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") language being translated into, respectively. Specifically, one-to-many multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be expressed as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to \\cdot} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_1},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_j},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{lg}\\to t_N}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Similarly, the many-to-one multilingual data for a specific language (lg) can be denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\cdot \\to \\lg} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{s_1\\to \\lg},\\mathcal{D}_{s_i\\to \\lg},\\dots,\\mathcal{D}_{s_N\\to \\lg}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". All input sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 526, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 526, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 526, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tag) to indicate the source language and target languages. During each training phase, we have tripleflows playing for different rules, Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 384, + 406 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 384, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 384, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.1 Mix-Flow" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 412, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 412, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 412, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mix-Flow is built upon a multilingual encoder branch and a multilingual decoder branch. It is trained on multilingual to multilingual data. This flow learns a mapping function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 412, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 412, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from a sentence in any language to another language. All language data is mixed together. The input source sequence is preceded by a special tag (called the language tag) to indicate the source languages. Following traditional methods, we also add a target language tag in the decoder part. The training loss for a Mix-Flow is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 571, + 525, + 601 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 571, + 525, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 571, + 525, + 601 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {m} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\mathrm {m u l t i}}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {m}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "d91e7ec826d006fe1bdca482e448422107b6660c6dc4c67c360c1ff41cc959ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 651 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a pair sampled from multilingual training data. It is used to avoid over-fitting language-specific data in Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 383, + 672 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 383, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 383, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.2 Enc-Flow" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Enc-Flow includes a language-specific encoder and a multilingual decoder. It is trained with one-to-many multilingual data. The structure of such a design is natural for language-specific encoder training: the encoder input data comes from the same source language lg, and the decoder is multi-lingual data. The language tag is also added to the encoder" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11521" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and decoder parts. The training loss for language-specific Enc-Flow is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 109, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 109, + 290, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 109, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {e} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\lg \\rightarrow}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {e}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "119803c539359b09a3365e36cb5291a4b67a8f06e59be0776ca78e3d70952a19.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 176 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a pair sampled from one-to-many training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 148, + 197 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 148, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 148, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.3 Dec-Flow" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dec-Flow includes a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder. It is trained with many-to-one translation. We separate the training of Dec-Flow from the training of Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow. The parameters used for training Dec-Flow are initialized with the latest model trained by Mix-Flow and Enc-Flow. The language tag is also added to the encoder and decoder parts. Given a many-to-one dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\rightarrow \\lg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the training loss is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 336, + 290, + 365 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 336, + 290, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 336, + 290, + 365 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {d} = - \\sum_ {\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} \\sim \\mathcal {D} _ {\\cdot \\rightarrow \\lg}} \\log P _ {\\theta_ {d}} (\\mathbf {y} | \\mathbf {x}) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "2e7827d0a6d5a4e6cc27c51921afd971d1a9953926d5cf8b940dac8942dbedef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a pair sampled from many-to-one training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 188, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 188, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 188, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Training Algorithm" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 shows the whole training procedure. We will go into the effects of the two-stage design in Section 5. In the first stage, we initialize each module of the Lego-MT model with a pre-trained MT model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". After initialization, we shuffle a one-to-many dataset to obtain a new training sequence for Enc-Flow training. In the second stage, we fix the encoder parameter of M-Flow " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and learn the D-Flow decoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The iteration keeps running for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs. During inference, users can decide to load which flow for inference. We also evaluate the gap between these inference flows in experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 606, + 155, + 619 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 606, + 155, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 606, + 155, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 669 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 290, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While Lego-MT is generic, we focus the experiments on M2M-100-1.2B as backbone models since M2M-100 is a leading MT model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 131, + 692 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 131, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 680, + 131, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training Data We create a Many-to-Many dataset from OPUS4. We build a dataset covering 7 language-specific data and 433 languages. The 7 core languages are En, Zh, De, Ar, Ne, Az, Ceb." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The specifics of the construction process are delineated in Appendix A. All training pairs have been deduplicated with Flores-101." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 526, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation Data We use Flores-101 (Fan et al., 2021) as the evaluation set, which provides human-written translation pairs covering 101 languages. Since M2M-100 baselines only cover 86 languages, we only compare Lego-MT with baselines on 86 languages5. We evaluate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7 \\times 85" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " translation directions in total." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 374, + 227 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 374, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 374, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct experiments by using a pre-trained multilingual machine translation model: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021) as initialization. We build 7 language-specific encoders and 7 language-specific decoders to model 7 core languages. We compare Lego-MT with the following baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flores-175MB / 615MB Flores-101 (Goyal et al., 2022) furnishes two baseline models, with parameter sizes of 175MB and 615MB respectively, constructed on M2M-100." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 525, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M2M-100-418M It is the smallest model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is a base-version Transformer model with 12 encoders and 12 decoders with 4,096 hidden state units." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M2M-100-1.2B It is a Transformer model released by Fan et al. (2021) with 24 encoders and 24 decoders with 8,192 hidden state units." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M2M-100-12B It is the largest single M2M-100 model released by Fan et al. (2021), which is obtained by adding language-specific layers to M2M-100-1.2B model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric Fine-Tuning To build a fair comparison, we also use the constructed dataset to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. We follow the standard fine-tuning paradigm, which uses a Transformer initialized with M2M-100-1.2B. In this baseline, we only use LG-centric data to train models. We simply merge all translation pairs related to language LG together to get the mixed training data. Like our model does, we also add language code in the encoder and decoder parts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual Fine-Tuning In order to establish an equitable comparison, the constructed dataset was utilized to fine-tune M2M-100-1.2B. All translation data was amalgamated" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5These 86 languages are: af, am, ar, ast, be, bg, bn, bs, ca, ceb, cs, cy, da, de, el, en, es, et, fa, ff, fi, fr, ga, gl, gu, ha, he, hi, hr, hu, hy, id, ig, is, it, ja, jv, ka, kk, km, kn, ko, lb, lg, ln, lo, lt, lv, mk, ml, mn, mr, ms, my, ne, nl, no, ns, oc, or, pa, pl, ps, pt, ro, ru, sd, sk, sl, so, sr, sv, sw, ta, th, tl, tr, uk, ur, uz, vi, wo, xh, yo, zh, zu." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 200, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 200, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 200, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://opus.nlpl.eu/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11522" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 525, + 167 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 525, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 525, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 525, + 167 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelParam.X → EnX → ZhX → DeX → ArX → NeX → AzX → CebAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.115.77.211.24.60.63.03.16.5
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.321.210.314.211.51.32.44.99.4
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.521.611.016.18.81.04.75.39.8
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.026.312.919.38.11.44.66.811.3
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.028.013.321.315.12.96.48.813.7
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.027.913.019.517.25.54.20.512.5
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.027.413.920.915.212.19.410.315.6
8: Lego-MT× 1.030.716.423.818.215.011.915.118.7
", + "image_path": "cf52ce7014f620a0967fb9047a7e897cd3b8ea5f718109101455b589f7a8c966.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 169, + 525, + 269 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 169, + 525, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 169, + 525, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 169, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelParam.En → XZh → XDe → XAr → XNe → XAz → XCeb → XAVG.
1: Flores-175M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.112.77.811.66.92.22.85.47.1
2: M2M-100-418M (Fan et al., 2021)× 0.317.310.114.111.54.04.26.19.6
3: Flores-615M (Goyal et al., 2022)× 0.518.011.115.611.25.24.37.910.5
4: M2M-100-1.2B (Fan et al., 2021)× 1.021.513.117.712.67.16.19.512.5
5: M2M-100-12B (Fan et al., 2021)× 10.024.714.920.316.49.76.212.515.0
6: (4) + LG-Centric Fine-Tuning× 1.021.310.915.814.93.93.01.510.2
7: (4) + Multilingual Fine-Tuning× 1.021.813.518.414.713.411.112.415.0
8: Lego-MT× 1.025.016.321.418.417.013.516.818.3
", + "image_path": "fc477bbf9d95f87e0216138e4609abf25b6ebbd8a55995d12d7c646a35341433.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 276, + 525, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 276, + 525, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 276, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Translation results on Flores-101. The top group shows the results of many-to-one translation and the bottom part shows the results of one-to-many settings. We display the spBLEU on the devtest of Flores-101. Each cell represents the average performance of translating from the rest languages. “Param.” represents the number of required parameters during inference. Baseline 7 has the exact same training data with Lego-MT. For a fair comparison, we use Mix-Flow in Lego-MT for all translation pairs. Lego-MT outperforms M2M-100-1.2B w. multilingual fine-tuning by a large margin, with an average gain of 3.2 spBLEU (3.1 on many-to-one translation and 3.3 on one-to-many translation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 381, + 290, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 381, + 290, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 381, + 290, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for the purpose of fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B in this baseline. Correspondingly, language codes were incorporated in both the encoder and decoder components, as is done in our model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 188, + 456 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 188, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 188, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Settings and Metric" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training Details The training code is bulit on the code repository fairseq6. Each flow is initialized with a pre-trained M2M-100-1.2B model. We train all models using Adam optimizer with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1} = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{2} = 0.999" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the learning rate is set to 1e-4, and the max token number is set as 8,000. The training of all centric languages is conducted in random order: En, De, Ne, Az, Ceb, Ar, Zh. We split the whole dataset into 70 shards. And the whole training process takes around 15 days on 32 A100 GPUs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Metric We use the same evaluation metric (spBLEU) in the Flores-101 dataset. Before computing BLEU, we de-tokenized all data and then apply sentence piece tokenization for each language. It facilitates a more accurate assessment of model quality on the long-tail of low-resource languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 130, + 698 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 130, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 130, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT is an efficient translation model, outperforming M2M-100-12B with only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " inference parameters Table 1 show experiment results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 526, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 526, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 526, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on the Flores-101 devtest set. As we can see, LegoMT is an efficient translation model that achieves large performance improvements over M2M-100-1.2B, with 7.4 spBLEU improvements on many-to-one translation and 5.8 spBLEU improvements on one-to-many translation. It even outperforms M2M-100-12B especially on one many-to-one settings, with a gain of 5.0 spBLEU. As a comparison, with the same training data, a shared model M2M-100-1.2B only obtains slight performance improvements, 4.3 spBLEU on many-to-one translation, and 2.5 spBLEU on one-to-many translation. These results demonstrate Lego-MT provides an effective solution by using fewer inference parameters to achieve higher results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared with high-resource translation, low-resource translation benefits more from multiway architectures. We observe that the improvements achieved by Lego-MT are not equally contributed by different languages. As we can see from Table 1, X→Ne, X→Az, and X→Ceb obtain more obvious improvements than X→En, X→Zh, and X→De. On X→Ne translation, Lego-MT even gets 13.6 improvements over M2M-100-1.2B. These results are consistent with previous studies about parameter interference in massive multilingual machine translation that low-resource translation usually suffers. With less parameter interference, Lego" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 281, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 281, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 281, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 281, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/tree/main/examples/m2m_100." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11523" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MT gets higher low-resource translation results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multilingual branches play a significant role in avoiding over-fitting. As we can see from Table 1, only fine-tuning M2M-100-1.2B on language-centric data has serious over-fitting problems that the performance is dropped sharply, especially on low-resource settings, with a loss of 3.2 spBLEU on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Ne} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " translation and 3.1 spBLEU on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Az} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " translation. Like this baseline, Lego-MT also introduces language-specific parameters but does not show any performance drop. The key difference between Lego-MT with M2M-100-1.2B w. LG-Centric fine-tuning lies in that Lego-MT introduces multilingual branches as regularization, demonstrating that the unified space can avoid catastrophic forgetting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT supports efficient training, which is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "28.2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " faster than multi-way training. For simplification, we implement an 8-branch architecture where Lego-MT and the multi-way model both have 8 branches for encoder and decoders. We use Chinese-centric data in the first shard and select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7\\mathrm{Zh} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Zh}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " translations as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). For two models, all 8 encoder branches are initialized with the encoder part of M2M-100-418M, and all 8 decoder branches are initialized with the decoder part of M2M-100-418M. Due to the large parameter size, the multi-way model requires fewer tokens in a single batch. Lego-MT has less parameter size during each inference and thus can support more tokens in a single batch. For a fair comparison, we use the same settings for two models and set the number of tokens in a single batch to 3K. Due to the low GPU efficiency issues, the multi-way model takes 16.9 hours to finish one shard training on average while Lego-MT only takes 0.6 hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The total training cost of Lego-MT is only about twice that of M2M-1.2B fine-tuning. In the first stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific encoder, and in the second stage, we load a multilingual encoder-decoder and a single language-specific decoder. Compared to M2M-1.2B, the additional computations come from training language-specific parameters. Since the language-specific branch has the same size as the multilingual branch, the training costs only double. We believe that the training costs for such a model are reasonable, given its one-time training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 523, + 112 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 523, + 112 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 523, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 68, + 523, + 112 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Method#TokensSize (GB)Time (Hour)
Multi-Way Training3,00060.916.9
Lego-MT Training3,00010.30.6
", + "image_path": "3b83af2bfda21e2b9dbc15d3f3acc8a1d624451f9420f95a30d3f15cc77cd80a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 120, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 120, + 526, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 120, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Training efficiency of Lego-MT and a multi-way model. \"#Tokens\" represent the maximum tokens in a single batch during training. For a fair comparison, we initialize an 8-branch Lego-MT and an 8-branch multi-way model with M2M-100-418M as initialization. Size represents the size of the loaded parameters. \"Time\" represents the total time of completing all data (We select a small subset of training data for evaluation). In Lego-MT, we use a parallel thread for branch switching, which does not affect the running time. Lego-MT supports efficient training, which achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 120, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "28.2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 120, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedups over multi-way training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 287, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 287, + 526, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 287, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "feature. In real-world applications with unlimited data, inference costs are more critical than training costs. The advantage of Lego-MT is that it largely improves translation performance without incurring additional inference costs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 436, + 383 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 436, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 436, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis on Lego-MT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation studies on triple-Flow training We design three flows in Lego-MT: Mix-Flow, Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Mix-Flow contains a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder, which is essential in regularizing language-specific training. We start from M-Flow and see how Enc-Flow and Dec-Flow affect the final performance, which gives more insights into the design of our framework. For simplification, we use Chinese-centric data in top-10 shards and select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7\\mathrm{Zh}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{X}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Zh}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " translation pairs as a small training set, which includes high-resource languages (Be, De, Fa, Jv) and low-resource languages (Ne, Pa, Sw). We train Lego-MT on the selected set and observe results in Table 3. We can see that jointly training Enc-Flow and Mix-Flow boosts the performance in most directions. In contrast, jointly training Dec-Flow and Mix-Flow causes large performance degeneration. It is mainly because that language-specific decoder may cause a large distribution shift on multilingual encoders, resulting in catastrophic forgetting. That's why we split the training into two stages and keeps Dec-Flow in the second stage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analysis on inference path section Due to the plug-and-play features, there are several possible inference paths for a single translation direction. At the inference stage, there are three alternative solutions for language-centric translation: Mix-Flow," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11524" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 69, + 287, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 69, + 287, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 69, + 287, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 69, + 287, + 174 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LangMix-FlowDec-Flow + Mix-FlowEnc-Flow + Mix-Flow
x→zhzh→xx→zhzh→xx→zhzh→x
Be8.13.57.53.313.16.1
De16.014.714.013.422.119.2
Fa13.111.911.611.317.715.1
Jv6.33.16.03.18.83.3
Ne9.65.68.74.27.24.0
Pa1.41.11.20.51.80.5
Sw8.58.67.56.612.412.4
AVG.9.06.98.16.111.98.7
", + "image_path": "cf2c5ef7e80d10f6d9134b3061fef1cf3dd78810a52711353c5b4c9b2bbb35aa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 243, + 289, + 449 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 290, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 290, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation studies on Triple-Flow training. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "zh refers to the results of translating to zh and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{zh}\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "refers to the results of translating from zh. Dec-Flow brings a large performance drop." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 243, + 289, + 449 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 243, + 289, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 243, + 289, + 449 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelCeb→HaCeb→IgCeb→LnCeb→YoAVG.
M-1.2B5.55.90.92.43.7
M-12B8.710.80.92.95.8
M-FT6.46.60.82.14.0
Lego-MT12.513.92.33.28.0
ModelHa→CebIg→CebLn→CebYo→CebAVG.
M-1.2B7.47.54.23.45.6
M-12B8.88.83.84.16.4
M-FT7.58.63.74.86.2
Lego-MT12.312.36.26.79.4
ModelX→AstX→DaX→HuX→LoAVG.
M-1.2B16.722.017.74.815.3
M-12B13.023.319.19.016.1
M-FT13.823.217.80.913.9
Lego-MT15.425.420.15.616.6
ModelAst→XDa→XHu→XLo→XAVG.
M-1.2B13.218.316.06.613.5
M-12B15.220.918.28.815.8
M-FT14.417.915.55.813.4
Lego-MT15.520.818.18.915.8
", + "image_path": "31f19b52ba54241d55bdeb43862bf749f106b28a485e14ede03db600c0a19e6d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 291, + 507 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 291, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: The results on unseen directions that are not covered by the constructed dataset. \"M\" means M2M-100. Lego-MT shows the best generalization results. \"M-FT\" means M2M-100-1.2B w. Multilingual FT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Enc-Flow, and Dec-Flow. Figure 2 shows the comparison between these inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg., Ceb, Az, Ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). High-resource languages (eg., En, De, Zh, Ar) prefer language-specific branches. Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths. This demonstrates that specific parameters are more important when the amount of data in a language is huge. In summary, the Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) is recommended for inference tasks with low-resource languages, and the Dec-FLow (M-encoder + D-decoder) is more appropriate for high-resource languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT can learn the align different branches" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 351, + 71, + 478, + 168 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 71, + 478, + 168 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 71, + 478, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 71, + 478, + 168 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "817bfc7de679ef3a22fd655d0a4533b4ca35fa474cfa71e888212c868e5d93f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 276 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The comparison between different inference paths. For low-resource languages (eg. ceb, az, ne), Mix-Flow (M-encoder + M-decoder) works better than either Enc-Flow (E-encoder + M-decoder) or Dec-Flow (M-encoder + D-decoder). For high-resource languages (eg., en, de, zh, ar), Dec-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a language-specific decoder) achieves better performance among these paths." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 351, + 291, + 477, + 387 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 291, + 477, + 387 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 291, + 477, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 291, + 477, + 387 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "433252e8de01418292dd325fe0390ded0cbe14d8b406e53637dfc32399b89320.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 526, + 507 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 526, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The spBLEU gap between Mix-Flow (a multilingual encoder and a multilingual decoder) and unseen language-specific Flow (the combination of a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder). Positive numbers mean the results of the language-specific Flow are better than that of the M-Flow. The unseen language-specific Flow achieves better results on 9 out of 12 directions, demonstrating that Lego-MT can learn the alignment for different branches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "into a unified space. During training, we propose a triple-flow way to train Lego-MT. These three flows contain Mix-Flow, Dec-Flow, and Enc-Flow. To evaluate the quality of the hidden representations, we conduct experiments by directly using a language-specific encoder and a language-specific decoder for inference. Since such combinations do not occur in the training phase, it can evaluate the quality of the unified hidden space. We randomly combine the language-specific encoder and the language-specific decoder of four high-resource languages (En, De, Zh, Ar) with 12 translation directions. Figure 4 shows the performance of directly combining language-specific encoder and decoder. We find that such unseen combinations can get better results in most translation directions (9 out of 12). These results prove that Lego-MT can effectively map all languages into a unified space." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11525" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAst→XHu→XDa→XLo→XEn→XDe→XAr→XAz→XCeb→XNe→XZh→XAVG.
Multilingual FT3.82.62.76.37.64.21.72.60.96.23.73.9
Lego-MT14.210.111.917.520.614.16.912.25.817.711.713.1
ModelX→AstX→HuX→DaX→LoX→EnX→DeX→ArX→AzX→CebX→NeX→ZhAVG.
Multilingual FT4.92.21.66.910.83.00.52.70.77.84.34.1
Lego-MT14.18.810.517.824.113.73.611.04.021.211.812.9
", + "image_path": "cc0276f17046636e9d86c1996100cb17aa9671b74ccc4d1861b7e447d39cdef1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 205, + 278, + 259 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 187 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Commencing with random initialization, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1/7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the data is trained and the performance differential between Multilingual-FT and Lego-MT is evaluated. The findings indicate that the mean performance of Lego-MT across all language orientations surpasses that of Multilingual-FT and exhibits a more rapid convergence rate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 205, + 278, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 205, + 278, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 205, + 278, + 259 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelX→EnEn→XAVG.
ChatGPT zero-shot27.923.925.9
ChatGPT eight-shot31.924.728.3
Lego-MT30.225.728.0
", + "image_path": "27ddf4ed93d4581e6b0d26e5752f2b333c7719669a1412471780831ed7f104d2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 339 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Comparison of ChatGPT and Lego-MT: zero-shot and eight-shot results. While ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT in zero-shot performance, it outperforms Lego-MT in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{X}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " direction with eight-shot. However, in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " direction, ChatGPT falls behind Lego-MT even with eight-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, it proves that the performance of high-resource languages still has room for improvement by using language-specific parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT achieves promising results in unseen directions. We also conduct experiments on unseen directions to evaluate Lego-MT's performance in these scenarios, as demonstrated in Table 4. Distinguishing unseen translation directions can involve two scenarios: 1) The training data set lacks a specific translation direction. In this case, we start with the low-resource Ceb language and identify translation directions not included in our constructed data set. 2) The training data set lacks a direct translation between two languages. For instance, our training corpus may contain translations from Ast to En and from En to Es, but not a direct translation from Ast to Es. To address this, we randomly select four languages (Ast, Da, Hu, Lo) and evaluate the average performance on the Flores-101 devtest with one-to-many and many-to-one settings. According to all experimental results, Lego-MT significantly surpasses the Multilingual FT baseline and is on par with the M2M-100-12B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT performance is independent of pretrained model initialization and converges faster than existing pre-training pipelines. To evaluate the necessity of pre-trained model initialization, we compare Lego-MT with the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline that uses a single encoder-decoder model for all languages. We con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 208, + 526, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 208, + 526, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 208, + 526, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "duct experiments on a subset of our constructed corpus, which contains parallel data for 433 languages. We randomly initialize both models and train them on only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 208, + 526, + 384 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1/7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 208, + 526, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the data, then measure their performance on Flores-101. As shown in Table 5, our experimental results demonstrate that our Lego-MT model is independent of the pre-trained model initialization and achieves faster convergence than the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline. Moreover, our Lego-MT model outperforms the traditional multilingual pre-training pipeline on most of the machine translation tasks, showing its superior generalization and adaptation ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lego-MT surpasses ChatGPT in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " direction and is on par with ChatGPT in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " direction, in terms of performance. A comparative analysis between ChatGPT and LegoMT, as shown in Table 6, reveals that in zero-shot performance, ChatGPT lags behind Lego-MT. However, in eight-shot performance, ChatGPT surpasses Lego-MT in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{X} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " direction but falls short in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 527, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " direction. The prompts utilized for ChatGPT are \"You are a helpful assistant that translates {SOURCELANG} to {TARGETLANG}.\" for the system and \"Translate the following {SOURCELANG} text to {TARGETLANG}: {SOURCE_TEXT}.\" for the user." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 381, + 600 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 381, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 381, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With the increasing scale of languages, using a single model to translate all directions brings new challenges in practice. This paper proposes an efficient training recipe, which results in a detachable multilingual translation model, Lego-MT. To validate the effectiveness of our algorithm, we develop a massive MNMT translation dataset, covering 433 languages. Results on Flores-101 show that Lego-MT-1.2B achieves large performance improvements over strong baselines under a fair comparison. It even outperforms the result of M2M12B with a gain of 4 BLEU on many-to-one." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11526" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00089." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 133, + 290, + 167 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 133, + 290, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 133, + 290, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 290, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ankur Bapna and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1538-1548, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 290, + 448 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 290, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 290, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marta R. Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. CoRR, abs/2207.04672." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 290, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raj Dabre, Chenhui Chu, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2020. A survey of multilingual neural machine translation. ACM Comput. Surv., 53(5)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 589 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Damai Dai, Li Dong, Shuming Ma, Bo Zheng, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Stablemoe: Stable routing strategy for mixture of experts. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 7085-7095. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 290, + 653 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 290, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 290, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Siddharth Dalmia, Dmytro Okhonko, Mike Lewis, Sergey Edunov, Shinji Watanabe, Florian Metze, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2022. Legonn: Building modular encoder-decoder models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, Wei He, Dianhai Yu, and Haifeng Wang. 2015. Multi-task learning for multiple language translation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics(ACL)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mixture-of-experts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5547-5569. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 102, + 525, + 168 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 102, + 525, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 102, + 525, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 177, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 177, + 525, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 177, + 525, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 218, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 218, + 525, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 218, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Orhan First, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Multi-way, multilingual neural machine translation with a shared attention mechanism. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 525, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, Peng-Jen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzman, and Angela Fan. 2022. The flores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingual machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:522-538." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 378, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 378, + 525, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 378, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiatao Gu, Hany Hassan, Jacob Devlin, and Victor O.K. Li. 2018. Universal neural machine translation for extremely low resource languages. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 452, + 525, + 519 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 452, + 525, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 452, + 525, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016a. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 527, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 527, + 525, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 527, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2016b. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Seattle, Washington D.C. International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 601, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 601, + 525, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 601, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baijun Ji, Zhirui Zhang, Xiangyu Duan, Min Zhang, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2020. Cross-lingual pre-training based transfer for zero-shot neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 115–122." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Melvin Johnson, Mike Schuster, Quoc V Le, Maxim Krikun, Yonghui Wu, Zhifeng Chen, Nikhil Thorat, Fernanda Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Greg Corrado, et al. 2017. Google's multilingual neural machine translation system: Enabling zero-shot translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11527" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:339-351." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Fully character-level neural machine translation without explicit segmentation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:365-378." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020. Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 290, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xian Li and Hongyu Gong. 2021. Robust optimization for multilingual translation with imbalanced data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 290, + 359 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 290, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 290, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zehui Lin, Xiao Pan, Mingxuan Wang, Xipeng Qiu, Jiangtao Feng, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2020. Pretraining multilingual neural machine translation by leveraging alignment information. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zehui Lin, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning language specific sub-network for multilingual machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 290, + 497 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 290, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 290, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 582 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sungwon Lyu, Bokyung Son, Kichang Yang, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Revisiting Modularized Multilingual NMT to Meet Industrial Demands. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5905-5918, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 290, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiao Pan, Liwei Wu, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Contrastive learning for many-to-many multilingual neural machine translation. In the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Devendra Sachan and Graham Neubig. 2018. Parameter sharing methods for multilingual self-attentional translation models. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 261–271, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 525, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 525, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 525, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenqiao Song, Hao Zhou, Lihua Qian, Jingjing Xu, Shanbo Cheng, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. switch-glat: Multilingual parallel machine translation via code-switch decoder. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 244 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Multilingual translation via grafting pre-trained language models. In the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) - Findings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 525, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biao Zhang, Philip Williams, Ivan Titov, and Rico Sennrich. 2020. Improving massively multilingual neural machine translation and zero-shot translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11867." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaoming Zhu, Jiangtao Feng, Chengqi Zhao, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2021. Counter-interference adapter for multilingual machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 2812-2823." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 443, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 443, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 443, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Barret Zoph and Kevin Knight. 2016. Multi-source neural translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.00710." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11528" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 126, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 126, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 126, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite promising results, we also notice several limitations in this paper. First, we find that low-resource translation is not boosted by language-specific decoders and language-specific encoders, which require more exploration of the trade-off between parameter sharing and parameter tension. Second, the evaluation of few-shot languages still remains a large problem. Although the final training dataset covers 433 languages, we only evaluate the translation performance on the available evaluation set that only covers 86 languages since baselines do not support so many languages. More standard benchmarks are required for evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 278, + 197, + 291 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 278, + 197, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 278, + 197, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Dataset construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we will describe the construction details of the Many-to-Many dataset. As shown in Table 5, the pipeline mainly consists of six steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 123, + 350, + 230, + 529 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 350, + 230, + 529 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 350, + 230, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 350, + 230, + 529 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c0bc75fc823c8a809464b9cbc19376d4ee0c76413776773fbbbf1df09e6952b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 289, + 562 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 289, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 289, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The construction pipeline for Many-to-Many dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 1: Data Collection The raw data is collected from OPUS7, which is an open corpus that collects numerous parallel sentences from the web and overs a large number of domains from legislative to religious texts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 659, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 659, + 291, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 659, + 291, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 2: Data Unification Since the OPUS includes datasets from different sources, it leads to the following two significant issues." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 291, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 291, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 291, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) Different Language Code: Some language in OPUS has several corresponding language codes. One of the reasons is that different corpora use different standards for language code, including" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3 or self-defined language codes in OPUS. Another reason is that some corpora append region ids at the end of language codes to distinguish the same language used in different regions. To unify language codes, we replace ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 language codes with ISO 639-1 language codes if the codes from ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 have the same language name in the code set published by SIL International (formerly known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{8}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 525, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) Inconsistent Operation: Some datasets pre-tokensize their sentences in OPUS, especially for Chinese and Japanese." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 526, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, we remove the region id if the language code ends with a region id. All replaced language codes are shown in Table 7. For the language codes out of ISO 639 series, we list them and the corpus they come from in Table 9. Furthermore, we report all used language codes and the full names of their corresponding languages in our dataset in Table 10. Then we detokenize all sentences by removing white space and unifying our texts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 3: Data Merging After data unification, the parallel data is merged with the same language code pair from a different corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 4: Data Cleaning The OPUS corpus collected from the web contains some poor-quality data. The main problems are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) Duplication: we use the dedduplication script from fairseq to remove all duplicated sentence pairs for each language pair." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 525, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) Missing Translation: We remove the sentence without corresponding translation or repeating itself as translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3) Length Mismatching: After segmentation the sentences with white space for most languages or individual characters for Chinese and Japanese, we apply a filtering script from Moses decoder10 to remove the sentences that the length is more than 250 words or three times difference in length between source and target sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{8}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://iso639-3.sil.org/sites/ iso639-3/files/downloads/iso-639-3.tab " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{9}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/facebookresearch/ fairseq/edit/main/examples/ backtranslation/deduplicatelines.py " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{10}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/moses-smt/ mosesdecoder" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 200, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 200, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 200, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7https://opus.nlpl.eu/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11529" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 5: Train-Dev-Test Split Different traindev-test split schemes are developed based on the data quantity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 290, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) A parallel data with more than 6,000 sentence pairs. We randomly sample separately about 2,000 sentence pairs as validation and test set, respectively. And the rest is train set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) A parallel data with fewer than 6,000 sentence pairs. We take " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of all samples as train, validation, and test." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 290, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To avoid any overlap between our training data and used benchmark test data, we filter all sentences that exist in the common benchmarks (WMT, Flores-101) from our train and validation set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 290, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 6: Data Preprocessing The data preprocessing consists of two main steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 389 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) Sampling: Because the full dataset is huge, we sample some data for our training. The final dataset contains 1,307,143,514 sentence pairs, 433 languages, and 1,922 training pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) Preprocessing: The data is preprocess using the SentencePiece tokenizer provided by Fan et al. (2021) with a shared vocabulary of size 128,112." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 645 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 645 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OriginalReplacedOriginalReplacedOriginalReplaced
akakaeses_HNptpt_BR
amamheses_ECptpt_br
araraeses_COptpt_PT
arar_SYfafa_IRrnrun
arar_TNfafa_AFrwkin
ayaymfffulsnsna
azaz_IRfrfr_FRsosom
bgbg_BGfrfr_CAsrsrp
bmbamfrfr_BEsrsr_ME
bnbn_INfrfr_castsot
cacathahauswswa
dada_DKhihi_INtata_LK
dede_CHigibotgtg_TJ
dede_ATitit_ITtitir
dede_DEjpjaptltl_PH
eses_CLkrkautrtr_TR
eses_SVkvkpvurur_PK
eses_NIlnlinvivi_VN
eses_UYmgmlgwowol
eses_PEmsms_MYxhxho
eses_VEnbnb_NOyoyor
eses_ARndsnds_nlzeze_zh
eses_MXnlnl_NLzeze_en
eses_PAnlnl_BEzhzh_cn
eses_CRnnnn_NOzhzh_CN
eses_PRnono_nbzthradzh_HK
eses_ESnynyazthradzh_TW
eses_GTomormzthradzh_tw
eses_DOpapanzuzul
", + "image_path": "8cf334fcd3e7f4e993a7b3fde5c4eed00f74eab189f0531b138cc3a65d41defd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 290, + 692 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 290, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Code Replacement List. We use the codes in the column \"Original\" to replace the codes in the column \"replaced\" if these replaced codes exist in OPUS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11530" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 515, + 122 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 515, + 122 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 515, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 89, + 515, + 122 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CodeEnDeArZhNeAzCeb
#Sentence Pairs811,238,712360,369,144152,457,83092,763,4456,654,2704,208,0251,683,531
", + "image_path": "714e537103f3fc694b8872de0c37fe861e30fbf9b79a9bd7357772b18b21aeff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 191, + 516, + 270 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 132, + 464, + 144 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 132, + 464, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 132, + 464, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: The number of sentence pairs for each core language in Lego-MT training," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 191, + 516, + 270 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 191, + 516, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 191, + 516, + 270 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDatasetCodeDataset
crpbible-uedincbMultiCCAlignedszMultiCCAlignedsgnQEDcyclTatoeba
tcEUbookshopcxMultiCCAlignedzzMultiCCAlignediroQEDnahTatoeba
zhsGlobalVoicesnsMultiCCAlignedzeOpenSubtitlesmoQED,Ubuntu
zhtGlobalVoicesqdMultiCCAlignedbhQEDberQED,Ubuntu
tmpGNOMEqaMultiCCAlignedbntQEDtokiTatoeba
grGNOMEtzMultiCCAlignedryQEDkzjTatoeba
", + "image_path": "c7e3f0dc16c344b1a92d8e69726c0412903e98d198df16c401af7d6b2188150d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 338, + 525, + 716 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 278, + 503, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 278, + 503, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 278, + 503, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Unknown Language Codes, which are out of ISO 639 series. We can't confirm their full names." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 338, + 525, + 716 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 338, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 338, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCodeLanguageCode
AbkhazianabCorsicancoIbaniblaLower SorbiandsbOssetianosSwahili (macrolanguage)sw
AchineseaceCreecrIcelandicisLukpadopOttoman Turkish (1500-1928)otaSwtiss
Achuar-ShiwiaracuCreekmusIdoioLuo (Kenya and Tanzania)luoPaite ChinpckSwedishsv
AdygheadyCrimean TatarchrIgboigLushootseedlutPalaunpauSwiss Germangsw
AfaraaCroatianhrIlokiloLuxembourgishlbPalipiSyriacsyr
AfrihiliafhCusco QuechuaquzIndonesianidLuyialuyPampangapamTachawitshy
AfrikaansafCzechcsIngrianizhMacedonianmkPangasinanpagTachelihshi
AguarunaagrDanishdaInghushinhMacedo-RomanianrupPanjabipaTagal Murutmvv
Ainu (Japan)ainDariprsInterlinguaiaMaduresemadPapiamentopapTagalogtl
AkanakDinkadinInterlingueieMaithilimaiPapuan MalaypmyTahaggart Tamahaqthv
AkawaioakeDrentsdrtInuktitutiuMalagasymgPedinsoTahitianty
AkanlonaklDungandngInupiaqikMalay (individual language)zlmPennsylvania GermanpdcTajiktg
AlbaniansqDutchnlIranian PersianpesMalay (macrolanguage)msPersianfaTalusssantzl
Algerian ArabicarqDutton World SpeedwordsdwsIrishgaMalayalammlPhoenicianphnTalyshtly
American Sign LanguageaseDzongkhadzItalianitMaltesemtPicardpedTamashektmh
AmharicamEastern Canadian InuktitutikeJakunjakMammamPiemontesepmsTamilta
Ancient Greek (to 1453)grcEastern MarimhrJamaican Creole EnglishjamMambaemgnPipilpplTarifitrif
Ancient HebrewhboEastern Maroon CreoledjkJapanesejaMandarin ChinesecmnPlateau MalagasypltTase Naganst
ArabicarEfikefiJavanesejvManxgvPolishplTatartt
ArgonesseanEgyptian ArabicartzJewish Babylonian AramaictmrMaorimiPortugueseptTelugute
ArmenianhyEmilianeglKabylekabMarathimrPotawatomipotTena Lowland Quichuaqw
ArpitanfrpEnglishenKadazan DusundtpMarshallesemhPrussianprgTetelingino Nahuatlnhg
AsháninkacniErzyamyvKalaallusitklMesopotamian ArabicacmPushtopsTetumtet
AssameseasEsperantoeoKalmykxalMiahuatlán ZapoteczamQuechuaquThaith
AsturianastEstonianetKamba (Kenya)kamMiddle English (1100-1500)emmQuenyaqyaTibetanbo
AvaricavEvenkievnKamadaknMiddle French (ca. 1400-1600)frmQuitopepec ChinantechchqTigrinyati
AvestanaeEweeeKanurikrMikasukimikRapanuirapTohono O'odhamood
AwadiyaawaExtremaduranextKaçchikelcakMi'kmaqmicRomanianroTok Pisintpi
AymaraayFaroeosefoKaraliankrlMin Dong ChinesecdoRomanshrnTonga (Tonga Islands)to
AzerbaijanazFiji HindihifKashmiriksMin Nan ChinesenanRomanyromTraditional Chinesezhtrad
BaluchibalFijianfjKashubiancsbMinangkabauminRundirnTsongats
BambarabmFilipinofilKazakhkkMingrelianxmfRussianruTswanatn
BanjarbjnFinnishfiKekchikekMirandesemwIRusynrueTupitpw
Barasana-EduriabsnFrenchfrKhakasikjhMiskitomiqSamoansmTurkishtr
BashkirbaFriulianfurKhasikhaModern Greek (1453-)elSamogtiansgsTurkmentk
BasqueeuFulahffKhemerkmMohawkmohSangosgTuvalutvl
BavarianbarGalelagbiK'iche'qucMongolianmnSanskritsaTwitw
BaybayanonbvyGalicianglKikuyukikMorisienymfeSantalisatUab Metoaoz
BelarusianbeGan ChineseganKinyarwandarwMoroccan ArabicarySardinianscUdmurtudm
Bemba (Zambia)bemGandalgKirghizkyMossimosSatterffriesischstqUighurug
BengalibnGarhwaligbmKlingonthhNaurunaScotsscoUkrainianuk
BerombornGeorgiankaKoaatikuNavajonvScottish GaelicgdUmappk
BhojpuribhoGermandeKölschkshNeapolitannapSediqtrvUmbunduumb
BislamabiGheg AlbanianalnKomiikvNepali (individual language)npiSerbiansrUpper Sorbianhsb
Bodo (India)brxGilbertesegilKomii-PermyakkoiNepali (macrolanguage)neSerbo-CroatianshUrduur
BosnianbsGoan KonkanigomKongokgNigerian FulfuldefuvShanshnUspanteccousp
BretonbrGothicgotKoreankoNiueanniuShonasnUzbekuz
BritheningbztGroningsgosKotavaavkNogainogShuarjvVendave
BuginesebugGuadeloupean Creole FrenchgcfKriangngtNorth Levantine ArabicapcSchuswapshsVenetianvec
BulgarianbgGuaranignKuanyamakjNorth Molucan MalaymaxSicilianscnVietnamesevi
BuraitibuaGuerrero AmuzgoamuKurdishkuNorthern FrisianfrrSilesianszlVlaamsvls
BurmesemyGuerrero NahuatlnguKven FinnishfkvNorthern KurdishkmrSindarinsjnVolapukvo
CabecarcjpGujaratguLaidanldnNorthern SamiseSindisdWalloonwa
CamsékbhGulf ArabicafbLadinlldNorthwestern OjibwaobjSinhalasiWalserwae
CatalancaHaidahaiLadinoladNorwegiannoSlovakskWaray (Philippines)war
CebuanocebHaitianhtLakotalktNorwegian BokmålnbSlovenianslWelshcy
Central Huasteca NahuatlnchHakka ChincnhLaoloNorwegian NynorsknnSomalisoWestern Frisanfy
Central KurdishckbHakka ChinesehakLatgalianltgNovialnovSouth AzerbaijaniazbWestern Panjabipnb
Central SamasmlHausahaLatinlaNuernusSouth NdebelenrWolaytawal
ChamorrochHawaiianhawLatvianlvNyanjanySouthern KurdishsdhWolofwo
ChavacanocbkHebrewheLigurianlijOccitan (post 1500)ocSouthern SamismaWu Chinesewuu
ChechenceHilgaynonhilLimburganliOld English (ca. 450-1100)angSouthern SothostXhosaxh
CherokeechrHindihiLingalalnOld French (842-ca. 1400)froSouthwestern DinkadikYakutsah
ChhattisgarhihneHiri MotuhoLingua Franca NovalfnOld FrisanofsSpanishesYaquiyqa
ChinesezhHmong DawmwwLiterary ChineselzhOld NorsenonStandard MalayzsmYiddishyi
ChoctawchoHohocLithuanianltOld RussianovrStandard Moroccan TamazightzghYorubayo
Church SlaviccuHuastechusLivlivOld SpanishospSumeriansuxZarmadje
ChuvashcvHungarianhuLojbanjboOriya (macrolanguage)orSundanesesuZazaza
CopticcopHunsrikhrxLomburdlmoOrizaba NahuatlnlvSwaibanswgZuluzu
CornishkwHupahupLow GermanndsOromoomSwahili (individual language)swh
", + "image_path": "7a63764c200827865e1bcd7a9e1d50c48cba3cc114d155335f5281858f160e5d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 525, + 749 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 525, + 749 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 525, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: List of Languages. Our dataset mainly use ISO 639 series as language code. For traditional Chinese, we define “zhtrad” as code." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11531" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 192, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A For every submission:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 414, + 242 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 106, + 317, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section \"Limitation\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 143, + 329, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 414, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? see the abstract and introduction in the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 215, + 398, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 252, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Did you use or create scientific artifacts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 127, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 127, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 270, + 127, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 291, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 291, + 315, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 463, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 524, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B3. Did you discuss if your use of existing artifact(s) was consistent with their intended use, provided that it was specified? For the artifacts you create, do you specify intended use and whether that is compatible with the original access conditions (in particular, derivatives of data accessed for research purposes should not be used outside of research contexts)? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 441, + 524, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B4. Did you discuss the steps taken to check whether the data that was collected / used contains any information that names or uniquely identifies individual people or offensive content, and the steps taken to protect / anonymize it? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B6. Did you report relevant statistics like the number of examples, details of train / test / dev splits, etc. for the data that you used / created? Even for commonly-used benchmark datasets, include the number of examples in train / validation / test splits, as these provide necessary context for a reader to understand experimental results. For example, small differences in accuracy on large test sets may be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 293, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Did you run computational experiments?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 663, + 87, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 663, + 87, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 663, + 87, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 682, + 524, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 682, + 524, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 682, + 524, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? see section 4.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 522, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a question on AI writing assistance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 258, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACL 2023 Responsible NLP Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11532" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 237 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 70, + 523, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? see section 4.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 120, + 523, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C3. Did you report descriptive statistics about your results (e.g., error bars around results, summary statistics from sets of experiments), and is it transparent whether you are reporting the max, mean, etc. or just a single run? see section 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 183, + 523, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C4. If you used existing packages (e.g., for preprocessing, for normalization, or for evaluation), did you report the implementation, model, and parameter settings used (e.g., NLTK, Spacy, ROUGE, etc.)? see section 4.3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 261 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 522, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 264, + 127, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 286, + 523, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D1. Did you report the full text of instructions given to participants, including e.g., screenshots, disclaimers of any risks to participants or annotators, etc.? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 336, + 523, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D2. Did you report information about how you recruited (e.g., crowdsourcing platform, students) and paid participants, and discuss if such payment is adequate given the participants' demographic (e.g., country of residence)? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 523, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 523, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 399, + 523, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D3. Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating? For example, if you collected data via crowdsourcing, did your instructions to crowdworkers explain how the data would be used? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 462, + 519, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 498, + 523, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Left blank." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11533" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Less Likely Brainstorming_ Using Language Models to Generate Alternative Hypotheses/4df00d29-4775-4f6a-96f6-99e29515a8c1_content_list.json b/2023/Less Likely Brainstorming_ Using Language Models to Generate Alternative Hypotheses/4df00d29-4775-4f6a-96f6-99e29515a8c1_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4a2fd74f879824ee253ea0bc7c494e8acc53ede --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Less Likely Brainstorming_ Using Language Models to Generate Alternative Hypotheses/4df00d29-4775-4f6a-96f6-99e29515a8c1_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,5217 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Less Likely Brainstorming: Using Language Models to Generate Alternative Hypotheses", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 228, + 87, + 771, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Liyan Tang Yifan Peng Yanshan Wang Ying Ding Greg Durrett Justin F. Rousseau", + "bbox": [ + 231, + 140, + 769, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The University of Texas at Austin", + "bbox": [ + 357, + 175, + 645, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "*Weill Cornell Medicine\n*University of Pittsburgh", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 192, + 719, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lytang@utexas.edu", + "bbox": [ + 398, + 211, + 603, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A human decision-maker benefits the most from an AI assistant that corrects for their biases. For problems such as generating interpretation of a radiology report given findings, a system predicting only highly likely outcomes may be less useful, where such outcomes are already obvious to the user. To alleviate biases in human decision-making, it is worth considering a broad differential diagnosis, going beyond the most likely options. We introduce a new task, \"less likely brainstorming,\" that asks a model to generate outputs that humans think are relevant but less likely to happen. We explore the task in two settings: a brain MRI interpretation generation setting and an everyday commonsense reasoning setting. We found that a baseline approach of training with less likely hypotheses as targets generates outputs that humans evaluate as either likely or irrelevant nearly half of the time; standard MLE training is not effective. To tackle this problem, we propose a controlled text generation method that uses a novel contrastive learning strategy to encourage models to differentiate between generating likely and less likely outputs according to humans. We compare our method with several state-of-the-art controlled text generation models via automatic and human evaluations and show that our models' capability of generating less likely outputs is improved. $^1$", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 282, + 460, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 725, + 258, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cognitive errors occur when an abnormality is identified, but its importance is incorrectly understood, resulting in an incorrect final diagnosis (Onder et al., 2021; Bruno et al., 2015). For example, radiologists may look for confirmatory evidence to support a diagnostic hypothesis and ignore or discount evidence that refutes the hypothesis (confirmation bias; Busby et al. (2018); Onder et al. (2021)). One", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 752, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/423a3f1e06dca83b71e198e73ac756b68926f901ae7a00eb5abcfaa55bd656db.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "... There is no evidence of restricted diffusion.", + "Figure 1: Examples from MRIINTERPRET and E-CARE datasets. The task is to generate interpretations or hypotheses that humans would consider to be \"less likely\" to happen but still relevant to the context. \"+ and \"~ represent likely and less likely outputs, respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 267, + 858, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "way to reduce the likelihood of such cognitive errors is to provide cognitive \"help\" by having a devil's advocate (Seah et al., 2021; Waite et al., 2017). For this purpose, we propose a new text generation task called \"less likely brainstorming\" to produce less likely but relevant consultations to bring fresh eyes to examine a case—a powerful way to correct diagnostic errors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 560, + 884, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we consider less likely hypotheses in two scenarios. First, they can be hypotheses that humans think are likely but not among the most likely to happen. These hypotheses are critical to providing second opinion of a prior clinical study but are often difficult to generate by traditional decoding techniques. Second, they can be hypotheses that are indeed impossible according to humans, but are close to being true if certain counterfactual assumptions about the input hold. These hypotheses are also helpful as they are often ignored by clinicians. There is a tendency for clinicians to look for a confirmatory diagnostic hypothesis but ignore a refutable one. Note that a less likely hypothesis", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ Code is available at https://github.com/Liyan06/Brainstorm.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12532", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 12532-12555 July 9-14, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 945, + 778, + 973 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "reflects the likelihood of a potential diagnosis from the human perspective, not from the probability of model output.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose BRAINSTORM, a novel contrastive learning strategy to generate \"less likely\" hypotheses. We treat this problem as a text generation task as text generation models are the most flexible for providing predictions and explanations for complex tasks; they can generalize to new examples and produce complex, structured diagnoses in many formats. Generation of the \"less likely hypotheses\" is conditioned on an indicator variable set to trigger the model to prefer outputs are less likely according to humans. For this purpose, we propose two additional loss objectives to effectively learn the relationship between input context, the indicator, and outputs. Without our training strategy, using naive controlled generation training, we find that conditioning on the indicator often leads to generating \"highly likely\" or irrelevant outputs.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 134, + 489, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We explore this task in two settings: everyday commonsense reasoning and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation generation (more details in Section 5). In the everyday commonsense reasoning setting, we adapt ART (Bhagavatula et al., 2020) and E-CARE (Du et al., 2022), which both contain \"less plausible\" or \"implausible\" hypotheses that fit our definition of less likely. An illustrative example asking for less likely hypotheses can be found in Figure 1. We show that our approach can generate more \"less likely\" hypotheses than baselines, including models directly fine-tuned on this set, past controllable generation approaches (Lu et al., 2022), or models with alternate decoding (Li et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). In the brain MRI interpretation setting, we experiment with predicting diagnoses from brain MRI reports (see Figure 1). Assessment by a neurologist reveals that our model successfully shifts the distribution of generated diagnoses further toward the tail while still generating relevant diagnoses.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 409, + 489, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 762, + 268, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Uncertainty in Radiology Interpretation Uncertainty plays a significant role in the process of clinical decision making (Croskerry, 2013). When facing uncertainty, physicians may resort to various erroneous strategies, such as denying the presence of uncertainty resulting in various interpretation biases. These biases could lead to unexpected consequences (Kim and Lee, 2018; Eddy,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1984), including missed diagnoses, misdiagnoses, unnecessary diagnostic examinations and even life-threatening situations (Farnan et al., 2008). Recent work (Seah et al., 2021; Waite et al., 2017) have provided deep-learning based methods and suggestions in reducing errors from interpretation bias on medical imaging. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to explore reducing bias from interpreting radiology reports via our less likely text generation framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Controllable text generation and decoding methods Controllable text generation is the task of generating text that adheres certain attributes, such as language detoxification (Zhang and Song, 2022; Liu et al., 2021; Dathathri et al., 2020), formality modification (Mireshghallah et al., 2022; Yang and Klein, 2021) and open-ended story generation (Mori et al., 2022; Lin and Riedl, 2021; Fan et al., 2018). The task of controllable text generation encompasses both training-time and decoding-time methods. Training-time approaches include CTRL (Keskar et al., 2019), which learns to utilize control codes to govern attributes in order to generate the desired text, and QUARK (Lu et al., 2022), which leverages a strong attribute classifier as a reward function to unlearn unwanted attributes. These methods typically rely on training data that contains both the desired and undesired attributes to be effective in the supervised setting. Our method falls into this category.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 259, + 884, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the other hand, decoding-time methods utilize off-the-shelf pre-trained LMs (PLMs) and aim to re-rank the probability of generated text based on specific constraints. PPLM (Dathathri et al., 2020) and FUDGE (Yang and Klein, 2021) are typical methods in this category that train an attribute classifier to guide PLMs to generating desired text. DEXPERTs (Liu et al., 2021) and Contrastive Decoding (Li et al., 2022) are more recent methods that re-weight generation probabilities by contrasting the output distributions between different LMs. We select those two as strong baselines for comparison against our proposed model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 583, + 884, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contrastive Learning in NLP Contrastive learning (CL) has been applied to a wide range of representation learning tasks in NLP, such as learning task-agnostic sentence representation (Gao et al., 2021) and improving natural language understanding (Jaiswal et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2021). It has recently been applied to text generation tasks as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12533", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "well (An et al., 2022; Cao and Wang, 2021; Lee et al., 2021) where additional hard positive or negative examples are created through techniques such as back-translation or perturbation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Problem Setting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 161, + 290, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The problem we tackle in this work can be viewed as a controllable text generation task. Let $x$ be a premise or a brain MRI report findings, we want a model to generate a likely/less likely hypothesis or interpretation $y$ given an indicator $i$ by drawing from the distribution $P(y \\mid x, i)$ . The indicator $i$ can take two values: + to indicate generating likely outputs and $\\sim$ to generate less likely outputs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 487, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For example, given a premise $x =$ \"Tom goes to the gym every day.\" in Figure 1 from the E-CARE dataset (more details in Section 5), we want a model to generate a hypothesis $y^{\\sim}$ that is less likely to happen $(i = \\sim)$ after $x$ , such as \"He gets a promotion from his manager who saw him in the gym\". Although this hypothesis fits into the same scenario as the premise as it directly connects to the premise involving Tom's daily gym attendance, it is less likely to happen since the causal relationship between going to the gym and receiving a promotion is not common. The understanding of what is \"less likely\" can be based on the concept of bounded rationality (Simon, 1955), where likely hypotheses are those that are likely given known premises, but less likely hypotheses may stem from additional unknown premises.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 317, + 489, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is important to note that when we refer to an output as \"less likely/likely\", we mean that it is less likely/likely based on human understanding of $x$ . All models we experiment with in this work generate outputs that have high probability according to the model, regardless of whether they are likely or less likely to happen according to humans.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 489, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 715, + 265, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present our method as well as baseline models we compare against. Requirements for these models can be found in Table 1. We use BART (Lewis et al., 2020) as the backbone LM for all experimental settings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 BRAINSTORM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 273, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our encoder-decoder system takes the concatenation of a pair $(x, i)$ as input and returns one or multiple generated output sequences $y$ . At decoding time $t$ , our model iteratively decodes the next token", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "conditioned on the left-hand context, i.e., $y_{< t}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 853, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {\\mathrm {L M}} (y) = \\prod_ {t} ^ {T} P _ {\\mathrm {L M}} \\left(y _ {t} \\mid x, i, y _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 112, + 882, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $P_{\\mathrm{LM}}(y_t \\mid x, i, y_{