user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Models in the Wild: On Corruption Robustness of NLP Systems

Paper content:
Natural Language Processing models lack a unified approach to robustness testing.
In this paper we introduce WildNLP - a framework for testing model stability in a natural setting where text corruptions such as keyboard errors or misspelling occur.
We compare robustness of models from 4 popular NLP tasks: Q&A, NLI, NER and Sentiment Analysis by testing their performance on aspects introduced in the framework.
In particular, we focus on a comparison between recent state-of-the- art text representations and non-contextualized word embeddings.
In order to improve robust- ness, we perform adversarial training on se- lected aspects and check its transferability to the improvement of models with various cor- ruption types.
We find that the high perfor- mance of models does not ensure sufficient robustness, although modern embedding tech- niques help to improve it.
We release cor- rupted datasets and code for WildNLP frame- work for the community.
Adversarial examples have been shown to severely degrade performance of deep learning models BID10 BID14 .
Natural Language Processing systems are no different in this respect.
Multiple areas of NLP, such as machine translation BID1 , question answering BID12 , or text classification have been studied to assess the impact of adversaries generated with various methods.
However, these works tend to focus on one area only, often with attacks designed just for the selected problem.
It makes comparisons between models, datasets, and NLP areas impossible.
In particular, the robustness of modern word embedding systems -such as ELMo BID17 , Flair BID0 and language model based BERT BID5 remains unstudied.In this article, we evaluate the behavior of natural language models in the wild.
We propose WildNLP -a systematic and comprehensive robustness testing framework which can be used for any NLP model.
Instead of focusing on elaborate attacks, which are unlikely to originate by accident, we measure the quality of models in a natural setting, where input data is poisoned with errors involuntarily generated by actual users.
We put these notions into a set of tests called aspects.
Moreover, we introduce the concept of corruption severity and prove that it is critical to model improvement via adversarial training.
The framework is aimed at any NLP problem irrespective of its form of input and output.In summary, our contributions are the following:1.
We offer a systematic framework for testing corruption robustness -the WildNLP.In total, we introduce 11 aspects of robustness testing, with multiple severity levels.
We release the code and a collection of popular datasets that are corrupted with WildNLP for the community 1 .
The framework is easy to extend.
New aspects can be defined by the community.2.
We test corruption robustness of a number of NLP tasks: question answering (Q&A), natural language inference (NLI), named entity recognition (NER), and sentiment analysis (SA).
We verify stability of models trained on contextualized embeddings like ELMo and Flair in contrast to noncontextualized FastText BID2 and GloVe BID16 .We
also analyze BERT in the task of Q&A. We
find that new forms of text representation, despite greater contextual awareness, do not offer a sufficient increase in robustness.3. We
find that model training on one aspect does improve performance on another aspect, contrary to previous studies BID1 . For
this to be true, two corruption types must be similar to some extent.In section 2 we present related literature in the domain of NLP robustness. In
section 3 we present WildNLP framework, describing in detail each introduced aspect. In
section 4 we compare robustness of NER, Q&A, NLI and Sentiment Analysis. In
section 5 we perform adversarial training on Qwerty aspect with different severities and test these models on other aspects. We
conclude in section 6.
In this work, we have presented the WildNLP framework for corruption robustness testing.
We have introduced 11 text corruption types (at various severity levels) which can occur naturally in model deployment setting: misspellings, keyboard errors, attempts at masking emotional language, and others.
We test on four NLP areas and 12 models in total, verifying corruption robustness of state-of-the-art BERT system and new LM-based embeddings: ELMo and Flair, contrasted with GloVe and Fasttext.
We find that the problem of lacking corruption robustness is not solved by these recent systems.
However, we find that the issue can be partially alleviated by adversarial training, even across aspects.
We believe that problem of adversarial examples in NLP is still vague and hard to quantify.
Without doubt, more work is needed to make models robust to natural noise, whether by robust word embeddings, model architectures, or better datasets.

assistant: text: We compare robustness of models from 4 popular NLP tasks: Q&A, NLI, NER and Sentiment Analysis by testing their performance on perturbed inputs.