L EARNING THE D IFFERENCE THAT M AKES A D IFFERENCE WITH C OUNTERFACTUALLY -A UGMENTED D ATA
A BSTRACT
Despite alarm over the reliance of machine learning systems on so-called spurious patterns, the term lacks coherent meaning in standard statistical frameworks.
However, the language of causality offers clarity: spurious associations are due to confounding (e.g., a common cause), but not direct or indirect causal effects.
In this paper, we focus on natural language processing, introducing methods and resources for training models less sensitive to spurious patterns.
Given documents and their initial labels, we task humans with revising each document so that it (i) accords with a counterfactual target label; (ii) retains internal coherence; and (iii) avoids unnecessary changes.
Interestingly, on sentiment analysis and natural language inference tasks, classiﬁers trained on original data fail on their counterfactually-revised counterparts and vice versa.
Classiﬁers trained on combined datasets perform remarkably well, just shy of those specialized to either domain.
While classiﬁers trained on either original or manipulated data alone are sensitive to spurious features (e.g., mentions of genre ), models trained on the combined data are less sensitive to this signal.
Both datasets are publicly available 1 .
I NTRODUCTION
What makes a document’s sentiment positive?
What makes a loan applicant creditworthy?
What makes a job candidate qualiﬁed?
When does a photograph truly depict a dolphin?
Moreover, what does it mean for a feature to be relevant to such a determination?
Statistical learning offers one framework for approaching these questions.
First, we swap out the semantic question for a more readily answerable associative question.
For example, instead of asking what conveys a document’s sentiment , we recast the question as which documents are likely to be labeled as positive (or negative)?
Then, in this associative framing, we interpret as relevant , those features that are most predictive of the label.
However, despite the rapid adoption and undeniable commercial success of associative learning, this framing seems unsatisfying.
Alongside deep learning’s predictive wins, critical questions have piled up concerning spurious patterns , artifacts , robustness , and discrimination , that the purely associative perspective appears ill-equipped to answer.
For example, in computer vision, researchers have found that deep neural networks rely on surface-level texture (Jo & Bengio, 2017;
Geirhos et al., 2018) or clues in the image’s background to recognize foreground objects even when that seems both unnecessary and somehow wrong: the beach is not what makes a seagull a seagull .
And yet, researchers struggle to articulate precisely why models should not rely on such patterns.
In natural language processing (NLP), these issues have emerged as central concerns in the literature on annotation artifacts and societal biases .
Across myriad tasks, researchers have demonstrated that models tend to rely on spurious associations (Poliak et al., 2018; Gururangan et al., 2018; Kaushik & Lipton, 2018; Kiritchenko & Mohammad, 2018).
Notably, some models for question-answering tasks may not actually be sensitive to the choice of the question (Kaushik & Lipton, 2018), while in Natural Language Inference (NLI), classiﬁers trained on hypotheses only (vs hypotheses and premises) perform surprisingly well (Poliak et al., 2018; Gururangan et al., 2018).
However, papers seldom make clear what, if anything, spuriousness means within the standard supervised learning framework.
ML systems are trained to exploit the mutual information between features and a label to make accurate predictions.
The standard statistical learning toolkit does not offer a conceptual distinction between spurious and non-spurious associations.
Causality, however, offers a coherent notion of spuriousness.
Spurious associations owe to confounding rather than to a (direct or indirect) causal path.
We might consider a factor of variation to be spuriously correlated with a label of interest if intervening upon it would not impact the applicability of the label or vice versa.
While our paper does not call upon the mathematical machinery of causality, we draw inspiration from the underlying philosophy to design a new dataset creation procedure in which humans counterfactually revise documents.
Returning to NLP, although we lack automated tools for mapping between raw text and disentangled factors, we nevertheless describe documents in terms of these abstract representations. Moreover, it seems natural to speak of manipulating these factors directly (Hovy, 1987).
Consider, for example, the following interventions: (i) Revise the letter to make it more positive ; (ii) Edit the second sentence so that it appears to contradict the ﬁrst .
These edits might be thought of as intervening on only those aspects of the text that are necessary to make the counterfactual label applicable.
In this exploratory paper, we design a human-in-the-loop system for counterfactually manipulating documents.
Our hope is that by intervening only upon the factor of interest, we might disentangle the spurious and non-spurious associations, yielding classiﬁers that hold up better when spurious associations do not transport out of domain.
We employ crowd workers not to label documents, but rather to edit them, manipulating the text to make a targeted (counterfactual) class applicable.
For sentiment analysis, we direct the worker to revise this negative movie review to make it positive, without making any gratuitous changes .
We might regard the second part of this directive as a least action principle, ensuring that we perturb only those spans necessary to alter the applicability of the label.
For NLI, a 3 -class classiﬁcation task ( entailment, contradiction, neutral ), we ask the workers to modify the premise while keeping the hypothesis intact, and vice versa, collecting edits corresponding to each of the (two) counterfactual classes.
Using this platform, we collect thousands of counterfactually-manipulated examples for both sentiment analysis and NLI, extending the
IMDb (Maas et al., 2011) and SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) datasets, respectively.
The result is two new datasets (each an extension of a standard resource) that enable us to both probe fundamental properties of language and train classiﬁers less reliant on spurious signal.
We show that classiﬁers trained on original IMDb reviews fail on counterfactually-revised data and vice versa.
We further show that spurious correlations in these datasets are even picked up by linear models. However, augmenting the revised examples breaks up these correlations (e.g., genre ceases to be predictive of sentiment).
For a Bidirectional LSTM (Graves & Schmidhuber, 2005) trained on
IMDb reviews, classiﬁcation accuracy goes down from 79 .
3% to 55 .
7% when evaluated on original vs revised reviews.
The same classiﬁer trained on revised reviews achieves an accuracy of 89 .
1% on revised reviews compared to 62 . 5% on their original counterparts.
These numbers go to 81 .
7% and 92 . 0% on original and revised data, respectively, when the classiﬁer is retrained on the combined dataset.
Similar patterns are observed for linear classiﬁers.
We discovered that BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is more resilient to such drops in performance on sentiment analysis.
Additionally, SNLI models appear to rely on spurious associations as identiﬁed by Gururangan et al.
Our experiments show that when ﬁne-tuned on original SNLI sentence pairs, BERT fails on pairs with revised premise and vice versa, suffering more than a 30 point drop in accuracy.
Fine-tuned on the combined set, BERT’s performance improves signiﬁcantly across all datasets.
Similarly, a Bi-LSTM trained on (original) hypotheses alone can accurately classify 69% of pairs correctly but performs worse than the blind classiﬁer when evaluated on the revised dataset.
When trained on hypotheses only from the combined dataset, its performance is not appreciably better than random guessing.
R ELATED W ORK
Several papers demonstrate cases where NLP systems appear not to learn what humans consider to be the difference that makes the difference .
For example, otherwise state-of-the-art models have been shown to be vulnerable to synthetic transformations such as distractor phrases (Jia & Liang, 2017;
Wallace et al., 2019), to misclassify paraphrased task (Iyyer et al., 2018; Pfeiffer et al., 2019) and to fail on template-based modiﬁcations (Ribeiro et al., 2018).
Glockner et al.
(2018) demonstrate that simply replacing words by synonyms or hypernyms, which should not alter the applicable label, nevertheless breaks ML-based NLI systems.
Gururangan et al.
(2018) and Poliak et al.
(2018) show that classiﬁers correctly classiﬁed the hypotheses alone in about 69% of SNLI corpus.
They further discover that crowd workers adopted speciﬁc annotation strategies and heuristics for data generation.
Chen et al.
(2016) identify similar issues exist with automatically-constructed benchmarks for question-answering (Hermann et al., 2015).
Kaushik & Lipton (2018) discover that reported numbers in question-answering benchmarks could often be achieved by the same models when restricted to be blind either to the question or to the passages.
Dixon et al.
; Zhao et al.
and Kiritchenko & Mohammad (2018) showed how imbalances in training data lead to unintended bias in the resulting models, and, consequently, potentially unfair applications.
Shen et al.
(2018) substitute words to test the behavior of sentiment analysis algorithms in the presence of stylistic variation, ﬁnding that similar word pairs produce signiﬁcant differences in sentiment score.
Several papers explore richer feedback mechanisms for classiﬁcation.
Some ask annotators to highlight rationales , spans of text indicative of the label (Zaidan et al., 2007; Zaidan & Eisner, 2008;
Poulis & Dasgupta, 2017).
For each document, Zaidan et al. remove the rationales to generate contrast documents, learning classiﬁers to distinguish original documents from their contrasting counterparts.
While this feedback is easier to collect than ours, how to leverage it for training deep
NLP models, where features are not neatly separated, remains less clear.
Lu et al.
(2018) programmatically alter text to invert gender bias and combined the original and manipulated data yielding gender-balanced dataset for learning word embeddings.
In the simplest experiments, they swap each gendered word for its other-gendered counterpart.
For example, the doctor ran because he is late becomes the doctor ran because she is late .
However, they do not substitute names even if they co-refer to a gendered pronoun.
Building on their work, Zmigrod et al.
(2019) describe a data augmentation approach for mitigating gender stereotypes associated with animate nouns for morphologically-rich languages like Spanish and Hebrew.
They use a Markov random ﬁeld to infer how the sentence must be modiﬁed while altering the grammatical gender of particular nouns to preserve morpho-syntactic agreement.
In contrast, Maudslay et al.
(2019) describe a method for probabilistic automatic in-place substitution of gendered words in a corpus.
Unlike Lu et al.
, they propose an explicit treatment of ﬁrst names by pre-deﬁning name-pairs for swapping, thus expanding Lu et al.
’s
list of gendered word pairs signiﬁcantly.
D ATA C OLLECTION
We use Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform to recruit editors to revise each document.
To ensure high quality of the collected data, we restricted the pool to U.S. residents that had already completed at least 500 HITs and had an over 97% HIT approval rate.
For each HIT, we conducted pilot tests to identify appropriate compensation per assignment, receive feedback from workers and revise our instructions accordingly.
A total of 713 workers contributed throughout the whole process, of which 518 contributed edits reﬂected in the ﬁnal datasets. [Table]
The original IMDb dataset consists of 50 k reviews divided equally across train and test splits.
To keep the task of editing from growing unwieldy, we ﬁlter out the longest 20% of reviews, leaving 20 k reviews in the train split from which we randomly sample 2 . 5 k reviews, enforcing a 50 : 50 class balance. Following revision by the crowd workers
[Table]
we partition this dataset into train/validation/test splits containing 1707 , 245 and 488 examples, respectively.
We present each review to two workers, instructing them to revise the review such that (a) the counterfactual label applies; (b) the document remains coherent; and (c) no unecessary modiﬁcations are made.
Over a four week period
[Table]
we manually inspected each generated review and rejected the ones that were outright wrong (sentiment was still the same or the review was a spam).
After review
[Table]
we rejected roughly 2% of revised reviews.
For 60 original reviews, we did not approve any among the counterfactually-revised counterparts supplied by the workers.
To construct the new dataset, we chose one revised review (at random) corresponding to each original review.
In qualitative analysis, we identiﬁed eight common patterns among the edits (Table 2)
[Table]
By comparing original reviews to their counterfactually-revised counterparts we gain insight into which aspects are causally relevant.
To analyze inter-editor agreement, we mark indices corresponding to replacements and insertions, representing the edits in each original review by a binary vector.
Using these representations, we compute the Jaccard similarity between the two reviews (Table 1), ﬁnding it to be negatively correlated with the length of the review.
Natural Language Inference
Unlike sentiment analysis, SNLI is 3 -way classiﬁcation task, with inputs consisting of two sentences, a premise and a hypothesis and the three possible labels being entailment , contradiction , and neutral .
The label is meant to describe the relationship between the facts stated in each sentence.
We randomly sampled 1750 , 250 , and 500 pairs from the train, validation, and test sets of SNLI respectively, constraining the new data to have balanced classes.
In one HIT, we asked workers to revise the hypothesis while keeping the premise intact, seeking edits corresponding to each of the two counterfactual classes. We refer to this data as Revised Hypothesis
Types of Revisions Examples
Recasting fact as hoped for
The world of Atlantis, hidden beneath the earth’s core, is fantastic
The world of Atlantis, hidden beneath the earth’s core is supposed to be fantastic
Suggesting sarcasm thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view thoroughly mind numbing “thriller-drama”, taking a “deep” and “realistic” (who are they kidding?) view
Inserting modiﬁers
The presentation of simply Atlantis’ landscape and setting
The presentation of Atlantis’ predictable landscape and setting
Replacing modiﬁers “Election” is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama “Election”isa highly expected and thoroughly mind numbing “thriller-drama”
Inserting phrases
Although there’s hardly any action, the ending is still shocking.
Although there’s hardly any action (or reason to continue watching past 10 minutes) , the ending is still shocking.
Diminishing via qualiﬁers which, while usually containing some reminder of harshness, become more and more intriguing .
which, usually containing some reminder of harshness, became only slightly more intriguing .
Differing perspectives
Granted, not all of the story makes full sense , but the ﬁlm doesn’t feature any amazing new computer-generated visual effects.
Granted, some of the story makes sense , but the ﬁlm doesn’t feature any amazing new computer-generated visual effects.
Changing ratings
one of the worst ever scenes in a sports movie.
3 stars out of 10 .
one of the wildest ever scenes in a sports movie.
8 stars out of 10 .
(RH).
In another HIT, we asked workers to revise the original premise, while leaving the original hypothesis intact, seeking similar edits, calling it Revised Premise (RP).
Following data collection, we employed a different set of workers to verify whether the given label accurately described the relationship between each premise-hypothesis pair.
We presented each pair to three workers and performed a majority vote.
When all three reviewers were in agreement, we approved or rejected the pair based on their decision, else, we veriﬁed the data ourselves.
Finally, we only kept premise-hypothesis pairs for which we had valid revised data in both RP and RH, corresponding to both counterfactual labels.
As a result, we discarded ≈ 9% data.
RP and RH, each comprised of 3332 pairs in train, 400 in validation, and 800 in test, leading to a total of 6664 pairs in train, 800 in validation, and 1600 in test in the revised dataset.
In qualitative analysis, we identiﬁed some common patterns among hypothesis and premise edits (Table 3, 4).
We collected all data after IRB approval and measured the time taken to complete each HIT to ensure that all workers were paid more than the federal minimum wage.
During our pilot studies, workers spent roughly 5 minutes per revised review, and 4 minutes per revised sentence (for NLI).
We paid workers $0 .
65 per revision, and $0 .
15 per veriﬁcation, totalling $10778 .
14 for the study.
M ODELS
Our experiments rely on the following ﬁve models: Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Na¨ıve Bayes (NB) classiﬁers, Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory Networks (Bi-LSTMs; Graves & Schmidhuber, 2005), ELMo models with LSTM, and ﬁne-tuned BERT models (Devlin et al., 2019).
For brevity, we discuss only implementation details necessary for reproducibility.
Types of Revisions Examples
[Table]
P: A young dark-haired woman crouches on the banks of a river while washing dishes.
OH:
A woman washes dishes in the river while camping .
(Neutral)
NH:
A woman washes dishes in the river.
(Entailment)
[Table]
P: Students are inside of a lecture hall.
OH:
Students are indoors .
(Entailment)
NH: Students are on the soccer ﬁeld .
(Contradiction)
[Table]
P: An older man with glasses raises his eyebrows in surprise.
OH:
The man has no glasses .
(Contradiction) NH:
The man wears bifocals .
(Neutral)
[Table]
P: A blond woman speaking to a brunette woman with her arms crossed.
OH:
A woman is talking to another woman .
(Entailment)
NH:
A woman is talking to a family member .
(Neutral)
Numerical
[Table]
P: Several farmers bent over working on the ﬁelds while lady with a baby and four other children accompany them.
OH:
The lady has three children.
(Contradiction) NH:
The lady has many children.
(Entailment)
Using
/Removing
negation
P: An older man with glasses raises his eyebrows in surprise.
OH:
The man has no glasses.
(Contradiction) NH:
The man wears glasses.
(Entailment)
Unrelated hypothesis
P: A female athlete in crimson top and dark blue shorts is running on the street.
OH:
A woman is sitting on a white couch.
(Contradiction) NH:
A woman owns a white couch.
(Neutral)
Standard Methods
We use scikit-learn (Pedregosa et al., 2011) implementations of SVMs and Na¨ıve Bayes for sentiment analysis.
We train these models on TF-IDF bag of words feature representations of the reviews.
We identify parameters for both classiﬁers using grid search conducted over the validation set.
Bi-LSTM
When training Bi-LSTMs for sentiment analysis, we restrict the vocabulary to the most frequent 20 k tokens, replacing out-of-vocabulary tokens by UNK .
We ﬁx the maximum input length at 300 tokens and pad smaller reviews.
Each token is represented by a randomly-initialized 50 -dimensional embedding.
Our model consists of a bidirectional LSTM (hidden dimension 50 ) with recurrent dropout (probability 0 . 5 ) and global max-pooling following the embedding layer.
To generate output, we feed this (ﬁxed-length) representation through a fully-connected hidden layer with ReLU (Nair & Hinton, 2010) activation (hidden dimension 50 ), and then a fully-connected output layer with softmax activation.
We train all models for a maximum of 20 epochs using Adam (Kingma & Ba, 2015), with a learning rate of 1e − 3 and a batch size of 32 .
We apply early stopping when validation loss does not decrease for 5 epochs.
We also experimented with a larger Bi-LSTM which led to overﬁtting.
We use the architecture due to Poliak et al.
(2018) to evaluate hypothesisonly baselines.
We compute contextualized word representations (ELMo) using character-based word representations and bidirectional LSTMs (Peters et al., 2018).
The module outputs a 1024dimensional weighted sum of representations from the 3 Bi-LSTM layers used in ELMo. We represent each word by a 128 -dimensional embedding concatenated to the resulting 1024 -dimensional ELMo representation, leading to a 1152 -dimensional hidden representation. Following Batch Normalization, this is passed through an LSTM (hidden size 128 ) with recurrent dropout (probability
Types of Revisions Examples
Introducing direct [Table]
OP:
Man walking with tall buildings with reﬂections behind him.
(Neutral) NP:
Man walking away from his friend , with tall buildings with reﬂections behind him.
(Contradiction) H:
The man was walking to meet a friend.
Introducing indirect evidence
OP:
An Indian man standing on the bank of a river.
(Neutral)
NP:
An Indian man standing with only a camera on the bank of a river.
(Contradiction) H:
He is ﬁshing.
Substituting entities
OP:
A young man in front of a grill laughs while pointing at something to his left.
(Entailment NP:
A young man in front of a chair laughs while pointing at something to his left.
(Neutral)
H:
A man is outside
Numerical modiﬁcations
OP:
The exhaustion in the woman’s face while she continues to ride her bicycle in the competition.
(Neutral)
NP:
The exhaustion in the woman’s face while she continues to ride her bicycle in the competition for people above 7 ft . Entailment) H:
A tall person on a bike
Reducing evidence
OP:
The girl in yellow shorts and white jacket has a tennis ball in her
left pocket
(Entailment)
NP: The girl in yellow shorts and white jacket has a tennis ball.
Neutral)
H:
A girl with a tennis ball in her pocket
Using abstractions
OP:
An elderly woman in a crowd pushing a wheelchair.
(Entailment) NP:
An elderly person in a crowd pushing a wheelchair.
(Neutral)
H: There is an elderly woman in a crowd.
Substituting evidence
OP
: A woman is cutting something with scissors .
(Entailment) NP:
A woman is reading something about scissors .
(Contradiction) H:
A woman uses a tool 0 . 2 ).
The output from this LSTM is then passed to a fully-connected output layer with softmax activation.
We train this model for up to 20 epochs with same early stopping criteria as for Bi-LSTM, using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 1e − 3 and a batch size of 32 .
We use an off-the-shelf uncased BERT Base model, ﬁne-tuning for each task.
To account for BERT’s sub-word tokenization, we set the maximum token length is set at 350 for sentiment analysis and 50 for NLI.
We ﬁne-tune BERT up to 20 epochs with same early stopping criteria as for
Bi-LSTM, using the BERT Adam optimizer with a batch size of 16 (to ﬁt on a Tesla V- 100 GPU).
We found learning rates of 5e − 5 and 1e − 5 to work best for sentiment analysis and NLI respectively.
[Figure]
E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
Sentiment Analysis
We ﬁnd that for sentiment analysis, linear models trained on the original 1 .
7 k reviews achieve 80% accuracy when evaluated on original reviews but only 51% (level of random guessing) on revised reviews (Table 5).
Linear models trained on revised reviews achieve 91% accuracy on revised reviews but only 58 .
3% on the original test set.
We see similar pattern for
Bi-LSTMs where accuracy drops substantially in both directions.
Interestingly, while BERT models suffer drops too, they are less pronounced, perhaps a beneﬁt of the exposure to a larger dataset where the spurious patterns may not have held.
Classiﬁers trained on combined datasets perform well on both, often within ≈ 3 pts of models trained on the same amount of data taken only from the original distribution.
Thus, there may be a price to pay for breaking the reliance on spurious associations, but it may not be substantial.
We also conduct experiments to evaluate our sentiment models vis-a-vis their generalization out-ofdomain to new domains.
We evaluate models on Amazon reviews (Ni et al., 2019) on data aggregated over six genres: beauty, fashion, appliances, giftcards, magazines, and software , the Twitter sentiment dataset (Rosenthal et al., 2017), 4 and Yelp reviews released as part of the Yelp dataset challenge.
We show that in almost all cases, models trained on the counterfactually-augmented
IMDb dataset perform better than models trained on comparable quantities of original data.
To gain intuition about what is learnable absent the edited spans, we tried training several models on passages where the edited spans have been removed from training set sentences (but not test set).
SVM, Na ¨ ıve Bayes, and Bi-LSTM achieve 57 .
accuracy, respectively, on this task. Notably, these passages are predictive of the (true) label despite being semantially compatible with the counterfactual label.
However, BERT performs worse than random guessing.
In one simple demonstration of the beneﬁts of our approach, we note that seemingly irrelevant words such as: romantic, will, my, has, especially, life, works, both, it, its, lives and gives (correlated with positive sentiment), and horror, own, jesus, cannot, even, instead, minutes, your, effort, script, seems and something (correlated with negative sentiment) are picked up as high-weight features by linear models trained on either original or revised reviews as top predictors.
However, because humans never edit these during revision owing to their lack of semantic relevance, combining the original and revised datasets breaks these associations and these terms cease to be predictive of sentiment (Fig 4).
Models trained on original data but at the same scale as combined data are able to perform slightly better on the original test set but still fail on the revised reviews.
All models trained on 19 k original reviews receive a slight boost in accuracy on revised data (except Na¨ıve Bayes), yet their performance signiﬁcantly worse compared to specialized models.
Retraining models on a combination of the original 19 k reviews with revised 1 .
7 k reviews leads to signiﬁcant increases in accuracy for all models on classifying revised reviews, while slightly improving the accuracy on classifying the original reviews.
This underscores the importance of including counterfactuallyrevised examples in training data.
Fine-tuned on 1 .
67 k original sentence pairs, BERT achieves 72 .
2% accuracy on SNLI dataset
but it is only able to accurately classify 39 .
7% sentence pairs from the
RP set (Table 7).
Fine-tuning BERT on the full SNLI training set ( 500 k sentence pairs) results in similar behavior.
Fine-tuning it on RP sentence pairs improves its accuracy to 66 .
3% on RP but causes a drop of roughly 20 pts on SNLI.
On RH sentence pairs, this results in an accuracy of 67% on RH and 71 .
9% on SNLI test set but 47 .
4% on the RP set.
To put these numbers in context, each
[Table] [Table]
[Table]
individual hypothesis sentence in RP is associated with two labels, each in the presence of a different premise.
A model that relies on hypotheses only would at best perform slightly better than choosing the majority class when evaluated on this dataset.
However, ﬁne-tuning BERT on a combination of
RP and RH leads to consistent performance on all datasets as the dataset design forces models to look at both premise and hypothesis.
Combining original sentences with RP and RH improves these
[Table] [Table]
numbers even further.
We compare this with the performance obtained by ﬁne-tuning it on 8 .
3 k sentence pairs sampled from SNLI training set
[Table]
and show that while the two perform roughly within 4 pts of each other when evaluated on SNLI, the former outperforms latter on both RP and RH.
To further isolate this effect
[Table]
Bi-LSTM trained on SNLI hypotheses only achieves 69% accuracy on SNLI test set, which drops to 44% if it is retrained on combination of original, RP and RH data (Table 8).
Note that this combined dataset consists of ﬁve variants of each original premisehypothesis pair.
Of these ﬁve pairs, three consist of the same hypothesis sentence, each associated with different truth value given the respective premise.
Using these hypotheses only would provide conﬂicting feedback to a classiﬁer during training, thus causing the drop in performance.
Further, we notice that the gain of the latter over majority class baseline comes primarily from the original data, as the same model retrained only on RP and RH data experiences a further drop of 11 .
6% in accuracy, performing worse than just choosing the majority class at all times.
One reasonable concern might be that our models would simply distinguish whether an example were from the original or revised dataset and thereafter treat them differently.
The fear might be that our models would exhibit a hypersensitivity (rather than insensitivity) to domain.
To test the potential for this behavior, we train several models to distinguish between original and revised data (Table 9).
BERT identiﬁes original reviews from revised reviews with 77 . 3% accuracy.
In case of
NLI, BERT and Na¨ıve Bayes perform roughly within 3 pts of the majority class baseline ( 66 .
7% ) whereas SVM performs substantially worse.
C ONCLUSION
By leveraging humans not only to provide labels but also to intervene upon the data, revising documents to accord with various labels, we can elucidate the difference that makes a difference.
Moreover, we can leverage the augmented data to train classiﬁers less dependent on spurious associations.
Our study demonstrates the promise of leveraging human-in-the-loop feedback to disentangle the spurious and non-spurious associations, yielding classiﬁers that hold up better when spurious associations do not transport out of domain.
Our methods appear useful on both sentiment analysis and NLI, two contrasting tasks.
In sentiment analysis, expressions of opinion matter more than stated facts, while in NLI this is reversed.
SNLI poses another challenge in that it is a 3 -class classiﬁcation task using two input sentences.
In future work, we will extend these techniques, leveraging humans in the loop to build more robust systems for question answering and summarization. A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Amazon AWS and NVIDIA for providing GPUs to conduct the experiments, Salesforce Research and Facebook AI for their generous grants that made the data collection possible, Sina Fazelpour, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Shruti Rijhwani, Shruti Palaskar, Aishwarya Kamath, Michael Collins, Rajesh Ranganath and Sanjoy Dasgupta for their valuable feedback and
Tzu-Hsiang Lin for his generous help in creating the data collection platform.
We also thanks Abridge AI, UPMC, the Center for Machine Learning in Health and the AI Ethics and Governance Fund for their support of our broader research on robust machine learning A PPENDIX
[Table]
Revision
Removed words
Inserted words
Revising Premise
Entailment to Neutral woman, walking, man, blue, sitting, men, girl, standing, looking, running person, near, child, something, together, people, tall, vehicle, wall, holding
Neutral to Entailment man, street, black, water, little, front, young, playing, woman, two waiting, couple, playing, running, getting, making, tall, game, black, happily
Entailment to Contradiction blue, people, standing, girl, front, street, red, young, sitting, band sitting, standing, inside, young, women, child, red, men, sits, one
Contradiction to Entailment sitting, man, walking, black, blue, people, red, standing, white, street man, sitting, sleeping, woman, sits, eating, playing, park, two, standing
Neutral to Contradiction man, woman, people, boy, black, red, standing, young, two, water man, woman, boy, men, alone, sitting, girl, dog, three, one
Contradiction to Neutral man, sitting, black, blue, walking, red, standing, street, white, street man, sitting, woman, people, person, near, something, something, sits, black
Revising Hypothesis
Entailment to Neutral man, wearing, white, blue, black, shirt, one, young, people, woman people, there, playing, man, person, wearing, outside, two, old, near
Neutral to Entailment white, wearing, shirt, black, blue, man, two, standing, young, red playing, wearing, man, two, there, woman, people, men, near, person
Entailment to Contradiction man, wearing, white, blue, black, two, shirt, one, young, people people, man, woman, playing, no, inside, person, two, wearing, women
Contradiction to Entailment wearing, blue, black, man, white, two, red, shirt, young, one people, there, man, two, wearing, playing, people, men, woman, outside
Neutral to Contradiction white, man, wearing, shirt, black, blue, two, standing, woman, red woman, man, there, playing, two, wearing, one, men, girl, no
Contradiction to Neutral wearing, blue, black, man, white, two, red, sitting, young, standing people, playing, man, woman, two, wearing, near, tall, men, old
[Figure]
The blue box contains a text passage and a label.
Please edit this text in the textbox below, making a small number of changes such that:
(a) the document remains coherent and (b) the new label (colored) accurately describes the revised passage.
Do not change any portions of the passage unnecessarily.
After modifying the passage and checking it over to make sure that is coherent and matches the label.
[Figure]
The upper blue box contains Sentence 1.
The lower blue box contains Sentence 2.
Given that Sentence 1 is True, Sentence 2 (by implication), must either be
(a) deﬁnitely True, (b) deﬁnitely False, or (c
) May be True.
You are presented with an initial Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 and the correct initial relationship label (True, False, or May be True
Please edit Sentence 2 in the textboxes, making a small number of changes such that:
(a) The new sentences are coherent and (b) The target labels (in red) accurately describe the truthfulness of the modiﬁed Sentence 2 given the original Sentence 1.
Do not change any portions of the sentence unnecessarily.
After modifying the text and checking it over to make sure that it is coherent and matches the target label.
[Figure]
The upper blue box contains Sentence 1.
The lower blue box contains Sentence 2.
Given that Sentence 1 is True, Sentence 2 (by implication), must either be (a) deﬁnitely True
, (b deﬁnitely
False, or
(c)
May be True.
You are presented with an initial Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 and the correct initial relationship label (True, False, or May be True).
Please edit Sentence 1 in the textboxes, making a small number of changes such that:
(a) The new sentences are coherent and (b) The target labels (in red) accurately describe the truthfulness of the original Sentence 2 given the modiﬁed Sentence
Do not change any portions of the sentence unnecessarily.
After modifying the text and checking it over to make sure that it is coherent and matches the target label.
[Figure]