Abstract
A growing body of recent evidence has highlighted the limitations of natural language processing (NLP) datasets and classifiers. These include the presence of annotation artifacts in datasets, classifiers relying on shallow features like a single word (e.g., if a movie review has the word "romantic", the review tends to be positive), or unnecessary words (e.g., learning a proper noun to classify a movie as positive or negative). The presence of such artifacts has subsequently led to the development of challenging datasets to force the model to generalize better. While a variety of heuristic strategies, such as counterfactual examples and contrast sets, have been proposed, the theoretical justification about what makes these examples difficult is often lacking or unclear. In this paper, using tools from information geometry, we propose a theoretical way to quantify the difficulty of an example in NLP. Using our approach, we explore difficult examples for two popular NLP architectures. We discover that both BERT and CNN are susceptible to single word substitutions in high difficulty examples. Consequently, examples with low difficulty scores tend to be robust to multiple word substitutions. Our analysis shows that perturbations like contrast sets and counterfactual examples are not necessarily difficult for the model, and they may not be accomplishing the intended goal. Our approach is simple, architecture agnostic, and easily extendable to other datasets. All the code used will be made publicly available, including a tool to explore the difficult examples for other datasets.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.07212
